U.S. Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 3 (Midwest Region); Bloomington, MN

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Gravel Island, Green 

Bay, Harbor Island, 

Huron, and Michigan 

Islands

National Wildlife Refuges

Comprehensive

Conservation Plan
Cover Photograph: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is working with others 

to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for 

the continuing benefit of the American people.

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is 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.

Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for 

management decisions; set forth goals, objectives and strategies needed to 

accomplish refuge purposes; and, identify the Fish and Wildlife Service's 

best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels 

that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as 

such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program 

prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for 

staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for 

future land acquisition.

(This page intentionally left blank)
Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

i

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor 

Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands

National Wildlife Refuges

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Land Protection Plan

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background ................................................................... 1

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service............................................................................. 3

The National Wildlife Refuge System......................................................................... 3

Refuge Purpose......................................................................................................... 8

Refuge Vision ............................................................................................................ 9

Purpose and Need for Plan........................................................................................ 9

History of Refuge Establishment.............................................................................. 10

Gravel Island NWR............................................................................................. 10

Green Bay NWR................................................................................................. 10

Harbor Island NWR ............................................................................................ 10

Huron NWR ........................................................................................................ 10

Michigan Islands NWR ....................................................................................... 10

Legal Context........................................................................................................... 11

Chapter 2: The Planning Process .............................................................................. 12

Internal Agency Scoping.......................................................................................... 12

Summary of Issues, Concerns and Opportunities.................................................... 14

Public Comments on Draft CCP............................................................................... 14

Preparation, Publishing, Finalization, and Implementation of the CCP.................... 15

Chapter 3: The Environment ...................................................................................... 16

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 16

General Island Geological and Ecological Background...................................... 16

Gravel Island NWR............................................................................................. 17

Green Bay NWR................................................................................................. 17

Harbor Island NWR ............................................................................................ 18

Huron NWR ........................................................................................................ 18

Michigan Islands NWR ....................................................................................... 19

Climate..................................................................................................................... 19

Climate Change Impacts .................................................................................... 19

Observed Climate Trends ............................................................................. 21
Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

ii

Scenarios of Future Climate.......................................................................... 21

Midwest Key Issues ...................................................................................... 21

Climate Change and The Great Lakes ............................................................... 23

Island Types, Geology, and Soils............................................................................. 24

Archeological and Cultural Values ........................................................................... 24

Gravel Island NWR (Horicon) ............................................................................. 24

Green Bay NWR (Horicon)................................................................................. 25

Harbor Island NWR (Seney)............................................................................... 26

Huron NWR (Seney)........................................................................................... 26

Michigan Islands NWR (Seney, Lake Michigan Islands; Shiawassee, Lake Huron 

Islands)............................................................................................................... 27

Social and Economic Context .................................................................................. 28

Agriculture .......................................................................................................... 28

Commercial and Sport Fisheries ........................................................................ 28

Shipping ............................................................................................................. 28

Recreation and Tourism ..................................................................................... 28

Industry............................................................................................................... 29

Environmental Contaminants................................................................................... 29

Natural Resources ................................................................................................... 29

Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Communities ................................................................ 29

Gravel Island NWR ....................................................................................... 29

Green Bay NWR ........................................................................................... 31

Harbor Island NWR....................................................................................... 33

Huron NWR................................................................................................... 35

Michigan Islands NWR (Seney) .................................................................... 35

Michigan Islands NWR (Shiawassee) ........................................................... 38

Associated Plans and Initiatives............................................................................... 39

Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan........................................................................... 39

Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ............................................................... 39

Habitat Management................................................................................................ 40

Managing Invasive Plants................................................................................... 40

Conflict Species Management............................................................................ 40

Double-Crested Cormorants (DCCO) ........................................................... 40

Visitor Services ........................................................................................................ 43

Gravel Island and Green Bay NWRs .................................................................. 43

Harbor Island NWR ............................................................................................ 43

Huron NWR ........................................................................................................ 44

Michigan Islands NWR (Seney).......................................................................... 44

Michigan Islands NWR (Shiawassee)................................................................. 44

Archaeological and Cultural Resources Management ............................................. 44

Law Enforcement..................................................................................................... 45

Chapter 4: Future Management Direction; Tomorrow’s Vision............................... 46

Great Lakes Islands Refuges Vision, Goals, Objectives and Strategies.................. 46

Vision Statement for Great Lakes Islands Refuges.................................................. 46

Goals for Great Lakes Islands Refuges ................................................................... 47

Ecosystem Goal ................................................................................................. 47
Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

iii

Wildlife Goal ....................................................................................................... 47

Habitat Goal........................................................................................................ 47

People Goal........................................................................................................ 47

Objectives and Strategies for Great Lakes Islands Refuges.................................... 47

Objectives and Strategies Common to All Island Refuges ................................. 47

Ecosystem Goal............................................................................................ 47

Wildlife Goal.................................................................................................. 49

People Goal .................................................................................................. 51

Objectives and Strategies Specific to Green Bay NWR (Plum and Pilot Islands)54

Wildlife Goal.................................................................................................. 54

Habitat Goal .................................................................................................. 56

People Goal .................................................................................................. 58

Objectives and Strategies Specific to Harbor Island NWR ................................. 64

People Goal .................................................................................................. 64

Objectives and Strategies Specific to Gravel Island NWR (and Spider and Hog 

Island of Green Bay NWR)................................................................................. 65

Wildlife Goal.................................................................................................. 65

Habitat Goal .................................................................................................. 67

People Goal .................................................................................................. 68

Objectives and Strategies Specific to Huron NWR............................................. 70

People Goal .................................................................................................. 70

Objectives and Strategies Specific to Michigan Islands NWR (Seney)............... 72

People Goal .................................................................................................. 72

Wildlife Goal.................................................................................................. 72

Objectives and Strategies Specific to Michigan Islands NWR (Shiawassee) ..... 73

Ecosystem Goal............................................................................................ 73

Wildlife Goal.................................................................................................. 73

Habitat Goal .................................................................................................. 74

People Goal .................................................................................................. 76

Chapter 5: Plan Implementation ................................................................................ 77

New and Existing Projects ....................................................................................... 77

Great Lakes Islands Refuges Operating Needs Projects ................................... 77

Gravel Island and Green Bay NWRs............................................................. 77

Harbor Island NWR....................................................................................... 81

Huron NWR................................................................................................... 81

Harbor Island NWR/Huron NWR/Michigan Islands NWR.............................. 82

Michigan Islands NWR (Seney) .................................................................... 83

Current and Future Staffing Requirements .............................................................. 84

Step-Down Management Plans ............................................................................... 85

Partnership Opportunities ........................................................................................ 85

Wilderness Review............................................................................................. 85

Monitoring and Evaluation .................................................................................. 85

Plan Review and Revision.................................................................................. 86

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)................................................................ 87

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment ................................................................. 89

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need ................................................................................. 90
Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

iv

1.1 Background ................................................................................................. 90

1.1.1 Shiawassee NWR ............................................................................... 90

1.1.2 Seney NWR ........................................................................................ 90

1.2 Purpose and Need for Action....................................................................... 90

1.3 Great Lakes Islands Refuges Goals ............................................................ 91

1.3.1 Ecosystem Goal .................................................................................. 91

1.3.2 Wildlife Goal........................................................................................ 91

1.3.3 Habitat Goal ........................................................................................ 91

1.3.4 People Goal ........................................................................................ 91

1.4 Vision Statement ......................................................................................... 91

1.5 Decision Framework.................................................................................... 91

1.6 Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility .......................................... 92

1.7 Scoping of the Issues .................................................................................. 92

1.7.1 Great Lakes Islands Refuges Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ... 92

Chapter 2: Description of the Alternatives................................................................ 93

2.1 Formulation of Alternatives.......................................................................... 93

2.2 Management Alternatives............................................................................ 93

2.2.1 Alternative A: Current Direction to Maintain Natural Integrity (No Action)

...................................................................................................................... 93

2.2.2 Alternative B: Minimal Management to Preserve Wilderness Qualities94

2.2.3 Alternative C: Enhanced Management to Promote Natural Integrity and 

Public Stewardship (Preferred Alternative).................................................... 94

Chapter 3: Affected Environment............................................................................. 96

3.1 Introduction.................................................................................................. 96

3.1.1 General Island Geological and Ecological Background....................... 96

3.2 Archeological and Cultural Values............................................................... 96

3.3 Social and Economic Context...................................................................... 96

3.4 Natural Resources....................................................................................... 96

3.5 Visitor Services............................................................................................ 97

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences ............................................................... 98

4.1 Effects Common to All Alternatives ............................................................. 98

4.1.1 Environmental Justice ......................................................................... 98

4.1.2 Climate Change Impacts..................................................................... 98

4.1.3 Cultural Resources.............................................................................. 98

4.1.4 Fire Management ................................................................................ 99

4.1.5 Other Common Effects........................................................................ 99

4.2 Cumulative Environmental Impacts Analysis............................................... 99

Chapter 5: List of Preparers................................................................................... 101

5.1 Refuge Staff............................................................................................... 101

5.2 Regional Office Staff.................................................................................. 101

Chapter 6: Consultation and Coordination with Stakeholders................................ 102

Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations ........................ 103

Appropriate Use Determinations............................................................................ 105

Gravel and Green Bay NWRs........................................................................... 107

Harbor Island NWR .......................................................................................... 113

Michigan Islands NWR ..................................................................................... 115
Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

v

Compatibility Determinations ................................................................................. 117

Gravel and Green Bay NWRs........................................................................... 117

Harbor Island NWR .......................................................................................... 140

Huron NWR ...................................................................................................... 151

Michigan Islands NWR ..................................................................................... 157

Appendix C: Land Protection Plan .......................................................................... 163

Introduction ............................................................................................................ 165

Proposed Action and Objective.............................................................................. 165

Project Description................................................................................................. 166

Location and Size............................................................................................. 166

Green Bay National Wildlife Refuge............................................................ 166

Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuge .................................................. 167

Joint Detailed Planning .......................................................................................... 167

Description of Habitat............................................................................................. 169

Major Wildlife Values ............................................................................................. 169

Migration Corridors ........................................................................................... 171

Potential Population Benefit Examples............................................................. 171

Threat to and Status of Resources to be Protected ............................................... 172

Protection Alternatives ........................................................................................... 173

Alternative 1 – No Action .................................................................................. 173

Alternative 2 – Acquisition and/or Management by Others (State, County, NonGovernmental Organizations, etc.)................................................................... 173

Alternative 3 – Acquisition by Fee Title (Service) ............................................. 174

Alternative 4 – Acquisition by Less-Than-Fee Title (Service) ........................... 174

Alternative 5 – Acquisition by a Combination of Fee Title and Less-Than-Fee 

Title (Service) as well as Acquisition and for Management by Others (State, 

County, Non-Governmental Organization, etc.) (Preferred Alternative)............ 175

Acquisition Alternatives.......................................................................................... 175

Purchase .......................................................................................................... 175

Donation ........................................................................................................... 176

Exchange ......................................................................................................... 176

Transfer............................................................................................................ 176

Coordination .......................................................................................................... 176

Sociocultural Impacts............................................................................................. 177

Strategic Habitat Conservation .............................................................................. 177

Biological Planning ........................................................................................... 177

Conservation Design ........................................................................................ 177

Conservation Delivery ...................................................................................... 177

Assumption-driven Research and Outcome-based Monitoring ........................ 177

Literature Cited ...................................................................................................... 178

Appendix D: Species Lists ....................................................................................... 221

Great Lakes Fish Species...................................................................................... 221

Gravel Island NWR ................................................................................................ 223

Bird Species ..................................................................................................... 223

Gravel Island and Green Bay NWRs ..................................................................... 225
Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

vi

Wildlife Species of Management Concern to Gravel Island and Green Bay NWRs

......................................................................................................................... 225

Vegetation by Island......................................................................................... 227

Gravel Island NWR ..................................................................................... 227

Green Bay NWR ......................................................................................... 228

Bird Species ..................................................................................................... 235

Reptiles, Amphibians and Mammals of Plum Island......................................... 239

Harbor Island NWR................................................................................................ 240

Plant Species of Harbor Island ......................................................................... 240

Mammals of Harbor Island ............................................................................... 248

Herptofauna of Harbor Island ........................................................................... 249

Bird Species of Harbor Island........................................................................... 250

Huron NWR ........................................................................................................... 253

Ferns and Gymnosperm Species of the Huron Islands .................................... 253

Huron NWR Gymnosperms......................................................................... 253

Plants of the Huron Islands .............................................................................. 255

Herptofauna of the Huron Islands..................................................................... 263

Bird Species of the Huron Islands .................................................................... 264

Mammals of the Huron Islands......................................................................... 267

Michigan Islands NWR........................................................................................... 268

Plants of Gull Island.......................................................................................... 268

Plants of Hat Island .......................................................................................... 271

Avian Species (Beaver Island Archipelago)...................................................... 273

Gull Island ................................................................................................... 273

Pismire Island.............................................................................................. 274

Hat Island.................................................................................................... 275

Shoe Island ................................................................................................. 275

Gull Island Plants.............................................................................................. 276

Bird Species (Gull, Hat, Shoe, and Pismire Islands)......................................... 277

Appendix E: Compliance Requirements ................................................................. 279

Appendix F: Mailing List........................................................................................... 292

Appendix G: Bibliography........................................................................................ 294

Appendix H: Glossary............................................................................................... 297

Appendix I: List of Preparers and Contributors ..................................................... 307
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

In this chapter:

Introduction

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The National Wildlife Refuge System

Refuge Purpose

Refuge Vision

Purpose and Need for Plan

History of Refuge Establishment

Legal Context

Throughout this document, five national wildlife refuges (NWRs, refuges) are discussed 

individually—such as the Gravel Island NWR or the Green Bay NWR. This document also 

discusses all five NWRs collectively as one entity and when doing so, refers to the group as the 

“Great Lakes islands refuges” or “Great Lakes islands NWRs.”

Introduction

The Great Lakes of North America contain one-fifth of the world's fresh surface water or 95 

percent of water in the United States. Only the polar ice caps and Lake Baikal in Siberia contain 

more fresh water. The surfaces of these water bodies encompass more than 94,000 square 

miles, and the coastline stretches along 10,900 miles. The Great Lakes shoreline is equal to 

almost 44 percent of the circumference of the earth. These figures are impressive and well 

known to many who live in the surrounding states and provinces. Of lesser renown are the 

35,000 islands that dot the lakes and serve as a terrestrial base or “hubs” for aquatic 

ecosystems of the Great Lakes.

For many, the thought of islands can 

evoke a sense of mystery, isolation, 

history, and wildness, or they can 

provide dreams of an exotic, private 

hideaway from a fast-paced world. 

Islands are a place of sanctuary and 

protection from the harsh elements of 

the open water. Islands also serve as 

a refuge for rare plants and animals, 

protected by miles of water from 

predators, diseases, and urban 

development. That is why both 

people and wildlife are attracted to 

these island havens.

The Great Lakes islands have unique 

landforms, plants and animal assemblages, and cultural history. They are living laboratories of 

natural selection. The Great Lakes islands contain globally-rare conservation targets, such as 

alvar plant communities—found only in Scandinavia and the Great Lakes ecosystem—and they 

provide breeding habitat for endangered species, such as the Great Lakes Piping Plover and 

the Lake Erie water snake. Many Great Lakes islands offer important breeding and stopover 

View from Plum Island Lighthouse, Green Bay NWR
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2

sites for migratory birds, and they provide climatic buffers and other special protection for fish 

nurseries.

The Great Lakes islands we will examine in this Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) are 

part of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, Refuge System) in Lake Huron, Lake

Michigan, and Lake Superior. The CCP will include Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, 

Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs (figures 1-1 through 1-3, table 1-1).

The CCP will set wildlife, habitat, and public use priorities and guide management decisions on 

these refuges for the next 15 years. All aspects of the island refuges will be addressed by the 

CCP, including important fish and wildlife habitats, public use, and current management 

activities. By law, six wildlife-dependent recreational uses receive a priority on national wildlife 

refuges: fishing, hunting, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education

and interpretation.

Table 1-1: Great Lakes Islands

State/Lake Refuge Name Responsible Office Island Name Acreage

Wisconsin/Lake Michigan Green Bay NWR Horicon NWR Hog Island 2

Wisconsin/Lake Michigan Green Bay NWR Horicon NWR Plum Island 325

Wisconsin/Lake Michigan Green Bay NWR Horicon NWR Pilot Island 3

Green Bay NWR (3 islands) Total 

Acreage

330

Wisconsin/Lake Michigan Gravel Island NWR Horicon NWR Gravel Island 1.2

Wisconsin/Lake Michigan Gravel Island NWR Horicon NWR Spider Island 17.7

Gravel Island (2 islands) Total Acreage 18.9

Michigan/Lake Superior Huron NWR Seney NWR Lighthouse Island 

(aka West Huron 

Island)

44.1

Michigan/Lake Superior Huron NWR Seney NWR Unnamed Island near 

Lighthouse Island

0.4

Michigan/Lake Superior Huron NWR Seney NWR Cattle Island 8.5

Michigan/Lake Superior Huron NWR Seney NWR McIntyre Island 81

Michigan/Lake Superior Huron NWR Seney NWR Gull Island 8.9

Michigan/Lake Superior Huron NWR Seney NWR Unnamed Island near 

Gull Island

0.9

Michigan/Lake Superior Huron NWR Seney NWR Unnamed Island near 

Gull Island

2.3

Michigan/Lake Superior Huron NWR Seney NWR Unnamed Island near 

Gull Island

0.9

Huron NWR (8 islands) Total Acreage 147.07

Michigan/Lake Huron Harbor Island NWR (1 island) Seney NWR Harbor Island 695

Michigan/Lake Huron Michigan Islands NWR Shiawassee NWR Thunder Bay Island 195.09

Michigan/Lake Huron Michigan Islands NWR Shiawassee NWR Sugar Island 144

Michigan/Lake Huron Michigan Islands NWR Shiawassee NWR Scarecrow Island 4.31

Michigan/Lake Huron Michigan Islands NWR Shiawassee NWR Scarecrow Island 1

Michigan/Lake Huron Michigan Islands NWR Shiawassee NWR Big Charity Island 250.8

Michigan/Lake Huron Michigan Islands NWR Shiawassee NWR Little Charity Island 16.99

Michigan/Lake Michigan Michigan Islands NWR Seney NWR Gull Island 243.32

Michigan/Lake Michigan Michigan Islands NWR Seney NWR Pismire Island 2

Michigan/Lake Michigan Michigan Islands NWR Seney NWR Hat Island 16.07

Michigan/Lake Michigan Michigan Islands NWR Seney NWR Shoe Island 1.32

Michigan Islands (9 islands) Total 

Acreage

874.9
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

3

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The Great Lakes islands refuges are administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, 

Service). The Service is the primary federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and 

enhancing the Nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. It oversees the 

enforcement of federal wildlife laws, management and protection of migratory bird populations, 

restoration of nationally significant fisheries, administration of the Endangered Species Act, and 

the restoration of wildlife habitat such as wetlands. The Service also manages the National 

Wildlife Refuge System.

The National Wildlife Refuge System

Refuge lands are part of the National Wildlife Refuge System, which was founded in 1903 when 

President Theodore Roosevelt designated Pelican Island in Florida as a sanctuary for Brown 

Pelicans. Today, the Refuge System is a network of 556 refuges and 38 wetland management 

districts covering more than 150 million acres of public lands and waters. Most of these lands 

(82 percent) are in Alaska, with approximately 16 million acres located in the lower 48 states 

and several island territories. 

The Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands specifically managed for fish and 

wildlife. Overall, it provides habitat for more than 5,000 species of birds, mammals, fish, 

amphibians, reptiles, and insects. As a result of international treaties for migratory bird 

conservation and other legislation, such as the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, many 

refuges have been established to protect migratory waterfowl and their migratory flyways.

Refuges also play a crucial role in preserving endangered and threatened species. Refuges 

also provide unique recreational and educational opportunities for people. When human 

activities are compatible with wildlife and habitat conservation, they are places where people 

can enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation. Many refuges have visitor 

centers, wildlife trails, automobile tours, and environmental education programs. Nationwide, 

approximately 30 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 2004.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established several important 

mandates aimed at making the management of national wildlife refuges more cohesive. The 

preparation of CCPs is one of those mandates. The legislation directs the Secretary of the 

Interior to ensure that the mission of the 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.

The goals of the Refuge System are to:

• Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, including species that 

are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.

• Develop and maintain a network of habitats for migratory birds, anadromous and 

interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations that is strategically distributed 

and carefully managed to meet important life history needs of these species across their 

ranges.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

4

• Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, wetlands of national or international 

significance, and landscapes and seascapes that are unique, rare, declining, or 

underrepresented in existing protection efforts. 

• Provide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreation (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation). 

• Foster understanding and instill appreciation of the diversity and interconnectedness of 

fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

5

Figure 1-1: Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

6

Figure 1-2: Green Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

7

Figure1-3: Huron and Harbor Island National Wildlife Refuges
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

8

Refuge Purpose

Gravel Island NWR was established by Executive Order 1678, dated January 9, 1913 . . .

“ . . . as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds.”

Public Law 91-504, October 23, 1970 designated the Gravel Island NWR as a Wilderness Area.

Green Bay NWR was established by Executive Order 1487, February 21, 1912 . . .

“ . . . as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds.”

Public Law 91-504, October 23, 1970 designated the Green Bay NWR as a Wilderness Area.

Green Bay NWR, Plum and Pilot Islands Additions were established by Public Land Order 

7681, dated October 17, 2007 . . .

“ . . . to protect native and migratory bird habitat and endangered species habitat within the 

Great Lakes Basin ecosystem.” 

Harbor Island NWR was purchased in 1983 under authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j) . . .

“ . . . (for the) conservation, management, and restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . . " 

16 U.S.C. n 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)

Huron NWR was established by Executive Order dated October 10, 1905 . . .

" . . . as a Refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife . . . " 16 U.S.C. 71 

5d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

“. . . conservation, management, and restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and 

their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . . " 16 U.S.C. n 

668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act).

Public Law 91-504, October 23, 1970 designated the Huron NWR as a Wilderness Area.

Michigan Islands NWR was established by Executive Order 265 in 1943. . .

" . . . as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife . . . " 

" . . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds." 16 U.S.C. ¤ 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) and

" . . . conservation, management, and restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and 

their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . . " 16 U.S.C. ¤ 

668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

9

Public Law 91-504, October 23, 1970 established Shoe, Pismire, and Scarecrow Islands as 

designated Wilderness Areas.

Refuge Vision

The planning team considered the past vision statements and emerging issues and drafted the 

following combined vision statement of the desired future state for all of the Great Lakes islands 

refuges:

“Management of Great Lakes islands refuges will reflect the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System by conserving in perpetuity a rich mosaic of island habitats and, 

enabling nesting and migrating birds, and other wildlife of conservation concern in the 

Great Lakes, to thrive here. With the help of our conservation partners, we will apply 

sound, scientific principles based on research and studies and adaptive management 

strategies to sustain the long-term health and integrity of Great Lakes habitats; expand 

community outreach and environmental education and interpretation programs; and, 

stimulate visitors to embrace stewardship of natural resources.”

Purpose and Need for Plan

This CCP articulates the management direction for the five Great Lakes islands refuges for the 

next 15 years. Through the development of goals, objectives, and strategies, this CCP 

describes how each refuge also contributes to the overall mission of the Refuge System. 

Several legislative mandates within the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997 have guided the development of this plan. These mandates include:

• Wildlife has first priority in the management of refuges.

• Wildlife-dependent recreation activities, namely hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation are priority public uses of 

refuges. We will facilitate these activities when they do not interfere with our ability to 

fulfill the refuge’s purpose or the mission of the refuge system.

• Other uses of the refuges will only be allowed when determined appropriate and 

compatible with refuge purposes and mission of the refuge system.

The plan will guide the management of the Great Lakes islands refuges by:

• Providing a clear statement of direction for the future management of each refuge.

• Making a strong connection between refuge activities and conservation activities that 

occur in the surrounding area.

• Providing refuge neighbors, users, and the general public with an understanding of the 

Service’s land acquisition and management actions on and around the refuge.

• Ensuring the refuge actions and programs are consistent with the mandates of the 

Refuge System.

• Ensuring that refuge management considers federal, state, and county plans.

• Establishing long-term continuity in refuge management.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

10

• Providing a basis for the development of budget requests on the refuge’s operational, 

maintenance, and capital improvement needs.

History of Refuge Establishment

Gravel Island NWR

Gravel (4 acres) and Spider (23 acres) Islands comprise the Gravel Island NWR. These islands 

are located in Lake Michigan, approximately 1 mile east of the northern tip of the Door County 

Peninsula, Wisconsin. The islands were set aside by Executive Order 1678 in 1913 as a 

preserve and breeding ground for native birds.

Green Bay NWR

Green Bay NWR consists of Hog Island (2 acres), Plum Island (325 acres), and Pilot Island (3.7 

acres). The islands are located in Lake Michigan, near Washington Island, off the tip of 

Wisconsin’s Door Peninsula. Hog Island was set aside by Executive Order 1487 in 1912 as a 

preserve and breeding ground for native birds. Plum and Pilot Islands were transferred from the 

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) to the Service in 2007.

Harbor Island NWR

Harbor Island (695 acres) is located one mile north of Drummond Island, MI and 3.5 miles south 

of the United States–Canadian (Ontario) border in Potagannissing Bay on Lake Huron. Harbor 

Island was purchased from The Nature Conservancy (TNC) in December 1983 as part of the 

Unique Ecosystem program.

Huron NWR

Huron NWR in Lake Superior was established in 1905 by executive order of President Theodore 

Roosevelt and is the oldest refuge in the Great Lakes and in the Midwest Region (Region 3).

Michigan Islands NWR

Shoe and Pismire Islands in Lake Michigan and Scarecrow Island in Lake Huron were acquired 

in 1943 and were the first islands that established the Michigan Islands NWR. Thunder Bay 

Island in Lake Huron was added in 1965 by a USCG /Service agreement.

The USCG ceded Lake Michigan's Gull Island to the Service in 1969. A sixth island was added 

to the refuge in 1995, when TNC transferred Hat Island in Lake Michigan to the Service. Big and 

Little Charity Islands in Lake Huron's Saginaw Bay were added to the refuge in 1999.

In 2000, Scarecrow and Thunder Bay Islands were designated part of the Thunder Bay National 

Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve. The designation gives federal protection to more 

than 100 well-preserved shipwrecks that litter the bottom of Thunder Bay, located near Alpena, 

MI. Once part of a major shipping channel, this 448-square-mile sanctuary is the first national 

marine sanctuary in fresh water and is located in an area that was known as "Shipwreck Alley" 

in the 1800s. 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

11

Sugar Island, near Thunder Bay Island, was purchased by the Service in 2011.

See Chapter 3, The Environment, for more details on individual island history, natural features 

and current management.

Legal Context

In addition to the authorizing legislation for establishing each NWR that comprises Great Lakes

NWR and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, several federal laws, 

executive orders, and regulations govern administration of Refuge System lands. Appendix F 

contains a partial list of the legal mandates that guided the preparation of this plan and those 

that pertain to refuge management.
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

12

Chapter 2: The Planning Process

In this chapter:

Internal Agency Scoping

Public Comments on Draft CCP

Summary of Issues, Concerns and Opportunities

Preparation, Publishing, Finalization and Implementation of the CCP

Throughout this document, five national wildlife refuges (NWRs, refuges) are discussed 

individually—such as the Gravel Island NWR or the Green Bay NWR. This document also 

discusses all five NWRs collectively as one entity and when doing so, refers to the group as the 

“Great Lakes islands refuges” or “Great Lakes islands NWRs.”

The Great Lakes islands refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) has been written 

with input and assistance from citizens, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and staff from

state and local agencies. The participation of these stakeholders is vital, and all of their ideas 

have been valuable in determining the future direction of the refuges.

Internal Agency Scoping

The CCP planning process began in February 2009 with a kickoff teleconference between staff 

at the Seney, Shiawassee and Horicon refuges as well as staff and regional planners from the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS, Service) office in the Twin Cities area. The participants in 

this “internal scoping” exercise reviewed vision statements and goals, existing baseline resource 

data, planning documents, and other information. In addition, the group identified a preliminary 

list of issues, concerns, and opportunities facing islands that would need to be addressed in the 

CCP.

A list of required CCP elements such as maps, photos, and GIS data layers was also developed 

at this meeting and during subsequent e-mail and telephone communications. Concurrently, the 

group studied federal and state mandates plus applicable local ordinances, regulations, and 

plans for their relevance to this planning effort. Finally, the group agreed to a process and 

sequence for obtaining public input and a tentative schedule for completion of the CCP. A Public 

Involvement Plan was drafted and distributed to participants soon after the meeting.

Open House Events

Public input was encouraged and obtained using several methods, including open houses, 

written comments during a public scoping period, and personal contacts.

Initial public scoping for the CCP began during the summer of 2009 with a series of eight open 

house events held in communities near the island refuges. Turnout ranged from very light 

(Huron NWR and Michigan Islands NWR) to more than 50 attending (Washington Island and

Green Bay NWR). Comment forms were available at the events and were made available at the 

managing refuge headquarters and visitor centers during the following weeks.

Those interested in making written comments had until August 15, 2009 to submit them. 

Comments could be sent by U.S. mail, e-mail, or via the Service’s planning website on the 
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

13

Internet. Eighty-five comment forms and other written comments were received during the 

scoping process.

The following is a list of dates and locations where open house events were held.

Lake Michigan

Gravel Island NWR and Green Bay NWR (Gravel, Hog, Pilot, Plum and Spider Islands)

Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 5–8 p.m.

Washington Island Community Center Gymnasium

910 Main Road; Washington Island, WI

Thursday, June 18, 2009, 5–8 p.m.

Sturgeon Bay Library

107 South 4th Avenue; Sturgeon Bay, WI

Lake Huron

Michigan Islands NWR (Big and Little Charity, Scarecrow, Thunder Bay Islands)

Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 4–8 p.m.

Great Lakes Maritime Heritage Center

500 W. Fletcher Street; Alpena, MI

Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 4–8 p.m.

Au Gres Community Library

230 Mackinaw Street; Au Gres, MI

Thursday, July 9, 2009, 4-8 p.m.

Sleeper State Park

6573 State Park Road; Caseville, MI

Lake Huron, Lake Michigan, Lake Superior

Harbor Island NWR, Huron NWR, and portions of Michigan Islands NWR (Hat, Shoe, Pismire, 

Gull Islands)

Monday, July 20, 2009, 5–8 p.m.

L'Anse Public Library

201 N 4th St, L’Anse, MI

Wednesday, July 22, 2009, 4:30–7:30 p.m.

Peaine Township Hall

Beaver Island, MI

Thursday, July 23, 2009, 5-8 p.m.

Drummond Island Town Hall

Drummond Island, MI 

Total open house attendance: 115
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

14

Summary of Issues, Concerns and Opportunities

The following list of significant issues was generated by internal scoping, the public open house 

events, e-mails, and letters. Each issue will be described in more detail in the following chapters 

of this plan.

Major issues identified by the public:

Double-crested Cormorant Management: Strong feelings among some for increased control 

measures in Green Bay and Beaver Island chain.

Access: Plum and Pilot Islands were added to the Green Bay NWR in 2007. Many people are 

requesting access to Plum Island for kayak and motor boat landings and hiking on trails.

A group of people requested advertising Harbor Island as part of a kayak trail and establishing 

boat landings and hiking trails. Other commenters had an opposing view to retain the status quo 

at Harbor Island.

Island Acquisition: Several comments were received about adding specific islands in private 

ownership to the Refuge System. What criteria should be used for adding islands to the existing 

refuge system?

Cultural Resources: Will cultural resource sites, especially the lighthouses, receive adequate 

care, restoration, and protection into the future?

Visitor Services: Should additional wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities be made 

available, or are the existing opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation adequate?

Public Comments on Draft CCP

The Draft CCP, Land Protection Plan (LPP) and Environmental Assessment (EA) were officially 

released for public review on August 23, 2012; the 31-day comment period ended on 

September 24, 2012. Planning information was sent to individuals and organizations for review 

and announced through local media outlets, resulting in 24 comment submissions. During the 

comment period two open house events were held to receive public comments on the Draft 

CCP. The open houses were held on September 10th, 2012, from 5–8 p.m. at the Washington 

Island Community Center; Rutledge Room; 910 Main Road; Washington Island, WI; and 

September 12th, 2012, from 4–7 p.m. at the Bear Track Inn Restaurant and Motel; 33655 

Townline Road; Drummond Island, MI.

Forty-four individuals attended these open house events. Because few changes to the preferred 

alternative were recommended during the public review period, only minor changes were made 

to the drafts in preparing the final CCP/EA document.

All respondents that expressed an opinion endorsed the selection of Alternative C and the 

general approach of the proposed future management of the Great Lakes islands refuges. We 

were able to incorporate nearly all of the specific changes suggested in the written comments. 

Consequently, we did not produce a formal Response to Comments Appendix for this CCP.
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

15

Preparation, Publishing, Finalization, and Implementation of 

the CCP

The Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands CCP and EA were

prepared by a team of staff from the Seney, Shiawassee, and Horicon Refuges and the 

Service’s regional office. The CCP/EA was published in two phases and in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The EA (Appendix A) presents a range of 

alternatives for future management and identifies the preferred alternative, which is also the 

CCP.

Verbal and written comments received by the Service were incorporated into this document. 

This document is the basis for guiding management on the refuges over a 15-year period. It will 

guide the development of more detailed step-down management plans for specific resource 

areas; it will underpin the annual budgeting process through Service-wide allocation databases. 

Most importantly, it lays out the general approach to managing habitat, wildlife, and people on 

the Great Lakes islands refuges that will direct day-to-day decision-making and actions.
Chapter 3: The Environment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

16

Chapter 3: The Environment

In this chapter:

Introduction

Climate

Island Types, Geology and Soils

Archeological and Cultural Values

Social and Economic Context

Environmental Contaminants

Natural Resources

Associated Plans and Initiatives

Habitat Management

Visitor Services

Archaeological and Cultural Resources Management

Law Enforcement

Throughout this document, five national wildlife refuges (NWRs, refuges) are discussed 

individually—such as the Gravel Island NWR or the Green Bay NWR. This document also 

discusses all five NWRs collectively as one entity and when doing so, refers to the group as the 

“Great Lakes islands refuges” or “Great Lakes islands NWRs.”

Introduction

General Island Geological and Ecological Background

Michigan and Wisconsin are fortunate to have many islands that form a “waterscape” unlike any 

found elsewhere in the world. Of the three Upper Great Lakes (Huron, Michigan, and Superior), 

there exists approximately 200 islands within the confines of the states in Lake Huron, 76 in 

Lake Michigan, and 175 in Lake Superior (not counting 86 in the St. Mary’s River) (Soule,

1993). 

The glacial history of island chains differs across the Upper Great Lakes. Glacial till overlying 

limestone bedrock forms the bulk of the Beaver Island group in northern Lake Michigan, 

although Pismire Island (part of Michigan Islands NWR) is an example of a sand and gravel bar 

island. Conversely, most islands in Lake Superior are formed of igneous and metamorphic 

bedrock, with the Huron Islands (of Huron NWR) being the result of granite upthrusts (Soule,

1993).

Post-glacial history of these islands also varies. National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, 

Refuge System) records indicate that many of the islands of Michigan Islands NWR were either 

impacted by human habitation (Gull Island) or by other uses (e.g., Hat Island was used as 

bombing range prior to refuge establishment) (Gates, 1950). Likewise, Huron NWR and Harbor 

Island NWR have had a history of human disturbance and manipulations (e.g., buildings are or 

were on both these refuges). 

Many ecological disturbances maintain the character of islands in the Upper Great Lakes, 

including fire, wind, insects and disease, hydrology, and the effects to vegetation by large flocks 

of nesting colonial waterbirds or the population cycling of herbivorous mammals such as 

snowshoe hares. Subsequent colonization of islands after major disturbances and successional 
Chapter 3: The Environment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

17

change over time (including colonization by flora and fauna) spurred the Theory of Island 

Biogeography by MacArthur and Wilson (1967). Because of geographic isolation and the 

resulting impact this isolation has had on colonization by species and human use, many of the 

islands in the Upper Great Lakes have unique plant and animal communities. Not surprisingly, 

numerous studies have occurred on these islands to describe flora, fauna, and ecological 

patterns and processes (see Soule, 1993 for a detailed list of references). And to this day, the 

study and conservation of islands have multiple values for science and society as a whole. 

Islands of the Upper Great Lakes are, and have always been, dynamic ecosystems unto 

themselves.

Gravel Island NWR 

Gravel (4 acres) and Spider (23 acres) Islands comprise the Gravel Island NWR. These islands 

are located in Lake Michigan, approximately 1 mile east of the northern tip of the Door County 

Peninsula, Wisconsin. Both islands provide optimum conditions for nesting birds, including 

Herring Gulls, Caspian Terns, and Doublecrested Cormorants. Gravel Island currently 

supports the largest colony of Caspian Terns

in the Great Lakes Region.

Gravel Island NWR and Hog Island, one 

component of Green Bay NWR, comprise 

the Wisconsin Islands Wilderness Area, 

which, at 29 acres, is one of the smallest 

wilderness areas in the country. The refuge 

is managed by staff at Horicon NWR, in 

Mayville, WI. Public use is not allowed due 

to ground nesting by migratory birds and 

limited access. 

Green Bay NWR 

Green Bay NWR consists of Hog Island (2 acres), Plum Island (325 acres), and Pilot Island (3.7 

acres). The islands are located in Lake Michigan, near Washington Island, off the tip of 

Wisconsin’s Door Peninsula. 

The refuge is managed by staff at Horicon 

NWR, in Mayville, WI. Hog Island supports a 

nesting colony of herring gulls and a few 

nesting Great Blue Herons and Redbreasted Mergansers. No development has 

occurred on Hog Island due to its small size, 

remoteness, and landing difficulties. 

Portions of Plum and Pilot Islands were 

developed to serve as lighthouse facilities or 

lifesaving stations during the late 19th 

century. The lighthouse on Pilot Island was 

built in 1858 and is listed in the National 

Register of Historic Places. Plum Island is 

Spider Island, Gravel Island NWR

Pilot Island Lighthouse, Green Bay NWR
Chapter 3: The Environment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

18

home to the historically significant lifesaving station, keeper’s quarters, and associated 

buildings. All are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 

Plum Island essentially functions as a small ecosystem and retains natural qualities absent on 

the nearby mainland. Habitats on Plum Island consist of cedar lowlands; maple, basswood, and 

hemlock uplands; and alkaline beach habitat. Today Pilot Island supports nesting colonies of 

Double-crested Cormorants, and Herring Gulls. Small numbers of Great Blue and Backcrowned Night-Herons also nest on Pilot Island.

All public use is prohibited on Hog and Pilot Islands due to ground nesting by migratory birds 

and the limited and treacherous access. Plum Island may offer public use opportunities in the 

future provided they are compatible with the refuge’s purpose and mission. 

Harbor Island NWR

The 695-acre Harbor Island NWR is located one mile north of Drummond Island, MI and 3.5 

miles south of the United States–Canadian (Ontario) border in Potagannissing Bay on Lake 

Huron. Habitats on Harbor Island consist of balsam/cedar lowlands and oak, beech, and maple 

uplands. Soil consists of shallow organics or sands over dolomite rock. Resident wildlife species 

include red fox, Ruffed Grouse, snowshoe hare, White-throated Sparrows, Gray Jays, and 

Magnolia Warblers. Timber wolves from St. Joseph Island, Ontario may hunt on the island 

during winter months. Bald Eagles also use the island's large bay for fishing each spring and 

fall. For more information see the 1978 Harbor Island Report (also known as the Harbor Island 

Ecological Inventory). Access to the island is by private boat. Harbor Island NWR's sheltered 

bay is used by boaters for fishing and as an overnight anchorage. A sand beach is also used for 

swimming. 

Huron NWR

Huron NWR is comprised of eight islands: West Huron (or Lighthouse) Island, Gull Island, 

McIntyre Island, Cattle Island, and four nameless, bare rock islands. Despite their small size, 

totaling only 147 acres, the remoteness 

and primitive quality of these islands 

have earned them the designation of a 

Wilderness Area.

The lighthouse on West Huron Island 

was built in1868 and is listed in the 

National Register of Historic Places. 

The Huron Islands Lighthouse 

Preservation Association was formed 

to raise funds for its restoration.

Habitat of this unstaffed refuge varies 

from a sparse covering of red pines 

and white birch with ground-level 

vegetation to barren granite with 

scattered lichen growth. Resident 

wildlife species include Merlins, Bald Eagles and a large gull colony on Cattle and nearby Rock 

Islands. 

West Huron (or Lighthouse) Island, Huron NWR
Chapter 3: The Environment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

19

Access to the island is by private boat. The refuge is located three miles off the south shore of 

Lake Superior and 18 miles east of the Keweenaw Peninsula. Of the eight islands, only West 

Huron Island (Lighthouse Island) is open to the public, during daylight hours, for hiking and 

nature study. 

All remaining islands are closed to the public, except by Special Use Permit to biologists, 

botanists, or other qualified persons in conjunction with approved studies. Exceptions are 

emergency landings by boats in distress. Camping is prohibited on all islands, except that 

biologists, botanists, and other qualified applicants may be permitted prescribed primitive-type 

camping only on West Huron Island (Lighthouse Island) by Special Use Permit, in conjunction 

with approved studies. 

Michigan Islands NWR

Michigan Islands NWR is comprised of nine islands in Lakes Michigan and Huron. Thunder Bay, 

Sugar, and Scarecrow Islands in Thunder Bay (near Alpena, MI), and Big and Little Charity 

Islands in Saginaw Bay are managed by Shiawassee NWR in Saginaw, MI. Seney NWR has 

management responsibility for Gull, Pismire, Hat, and Shoe Islands, part of the Beaver Island 

Group in the northern portion of Lake Michigan. In 1970, Scarecrow, Pismire, and Shoe Islands 

were officially designated as Michigan Islands Wilderness Area. The portion of Michigan Islands 

NWR managed by Seney NWR totals 262 acres with Gull Island accounting for 230 of those 

acres. 

Habitats vary considerably. Shoe Island has little to no groundcover and Gull Island has a 

grass- and forb-covered beach area above the high-water line, a shrub-covered sand dunes 

area, and balsam fir and white cedar in the interior. Soils consist of shallow organics or sands 

over cherty limestone and dolomite. At some point in their history, all nine islands have 

supported waterbird colonies, some of significant size and diversity.

Big Charity and Thunder Bay Islands have lighthouses and keeper's quarters. 

Climate

Due to its inland location, northern latitude, and relatively high elevation, the Great Lakes 

islands refuges are characterized by a relative severe climate. Growing season ranges from 70 

to 130 days, with spring freezes common. Extreme temperatures recorded range from -50 oF to 

over 105 oF. Snowfall is heavy, with up to 140 inches recorded annually in some localities. 

Average annual precipitation is relatively uniform across the area, between 28 inches and 32 

inches (Albert, 1995).

Climate Change Impacts

The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an order in January 2001 requiring federal agencies 

under its direction that have land management responsibilities to consider potential climate 

change impacts as part of long range planning endeavors. The increase of carbon dioxide (CO2

) 

within the earth’s atmosphere has been linked to the gradual rise in surface temperature 

commonly referred to as global warming. In relation to comprehensive conservation planning for 

national wildlife refuges, carbon sequestration constitutes the primary climate-related impact 

that refuges can affect in a small way. The U.S. Department of Energy’s “Carbon Sequestration 
Chapter 3: The Environment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

20

Research and Development” defines carbon sequestration as “ . . . the capture and secure 

storage of carbon that would otherwise be emitted to or remain in the atmosphere.”

Vegetated land is important for carbon sequestration. Terrestrial biomes of all types—

grasslands, forests, wetlands, tundra, and desert—are effective both in preventing carbon 

emission and in acting as a biological “scrubber” of atmospheric CO2

. The Department of 

Energy report’s conclusions noted that ecosystem protection is important to carbon 

sequestration and may reduce or prevent loss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial 

biosphere. 

Conserving natural habitat for wildlife is the heart of any long-range plan for national wildlife 

refuges. The actions proposed in this Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) would conserve 

or restore land and habitat and would thus retain existing carbon sequestration. This in turn 

contributes positively to efforts to mitigate human-induced global climate change.

One U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service) activity in particular—prescribed burning—

releases CO2 directly to the atmosphere from the biomass consumed during combustion. 

However, there is actually no net loss of carbon, since new vegetation quickly germinates and 

sprouts to replace the burned-up biomass and sequesters or assimilates an approximately 

equal amount of carbon as was lost to the air (Boutton et al., 2006). Overall, there should be 

little or no net change in the amount of carbon sequestered on the Great Lakes islands refuges

from any of the proposed management alternatives.

Several impacts of climate change have been identified that may need to be considered and 

addressed in the future:

• Habitat available for coldwater fish such as trout and salmon in lakes could be reduced.

• Forests may change, with some species shifting their range northward or dying out and 

other trees moving in to take their place.

• Ducks and other waterfowl could lose breeding habitat due to stronger and more 

frequent droughts.

• Changes in the timing of migration and nesting could put some birds out of sync with the 

life cycles of their prey species.

• Animal and insect species historically found farther south may colonize new areas to the 

north as winter climatic conditions moderate.

The managers and resource specialists responsible for the refuges need to be aware of current 

and future change due to global warming. When feasible, documenting long-term vegetation, 

species, and hydrologic changes should become a part of research and monitoring programs on 

the refuges. Adjustments in land management direction may be necessary over the course of 

time to adapt to a changing climate.

The following paragraphs are excerpts from the 2000 report, Climate Change Impacts on the 

United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, produced by the 

National Assessment Synthesis Team, an advisory committee chartered under the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act to help the U.S. Global Change Research Program fulfill its mandate 

under the Global Change Research Act of 1990. These excerpts are from the section of the 

report focused upon the eight-state Midwest Region.
Chapter 3: The Environment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

21

Observed Climate Trends

Over the 20th century, the northern portion of the Midwest, including the Upper Great Lakes, 

has warmed by almost 4 oF (2 oC), while the southern portion, along the Ohio River valley, has 

cooled by about 1 oF (0.5 oC). Annual precipitation has increased, with many of the changes 

quite substantial, including as much as 10- to 20-percent increases over the 20th century. Much 

of the precipitation has resulted from an increased rise in the number of days with heavy and 

very heavy precipitation events. There have been moderate to very large increases in the 

number of days with excessive moisture in the eastern portion of the basin.

Scenarios of Future Climate

During the 21st century, models project that temperatures will increase throughout the Midwest 

and at a greater rate than has been observed in the 20th century. Even over the northern 

portion of the region, where warming has been the largest, an accelerated warming trend is 

projected for the 21st century, with temperatures increasing by 5 to 10 oF (3 to 6 oC). The 

average minimum temperature is likely to increase as much as 1 to 2 oF (0.5 to 1 oC) more than 

the maximum temperature. Precipitation is likely to continue its upward trend, at a slightly 

accelerated rate; 10- to 30-percent increases are projected across much of the region. Despite 

the increases in precipitation, increases in temperature and other meteorological factors are 

likely to lead to a substantial increase in evaporation, causing a soil moisture deficit, reduction in 

lake and river levels, and more drought-like conditions in much of the region. In addition, 

increases in the proportion of precipitation coming from heavy and extreme precipitation are 

very likely. 

Midwest Key Issues

1. Reduction in Lake and River Levels

Water levels, supply, quality, and water-based transportation and recreation are all climatesensitive issues affecting the region. Despite the projected increase in precipitation, increased 

evaporation due to higher summer air temperatures is likely to lead to reduced levels in the 

Great Lakes. Of 12 models used to assess this question,11 suggest significant decreases in 

lake levels while one suggests a small increase. The total range of the 12 models' projections is 

less than a 1-foot increase to more than a 5-foot decrease. A 5-foot (1.5-meter) reduction would 

lead to a 20- to 40-percent reduction in outflow to the St. Lawrence Seaway. Lower lake levels 

cause reduced hydropower generation downstream, with reductions of up to 15 percent by 

2050. An increase in demand for water across the region at the same time as net flows 

decrease is of particular concern. There is a possibility of increased national and international 

tension related to increased pressure for water diversions from the Lakes as demands for water 

increase. For smaller lakes and rivers, reduced flows are likely to cause water quality issues to 

become more acute. In addition, the projected increase in very heavy precipitation events will 

likely lead to increased flash flooding and worsen agricultural and other non-point source 

pollution as more frequent heavy rains wash pollutants into rivers and lakes. Lower water levels 

are likely to make water-based transportation more difficult with increases in the costs of 

navigation of 5- to 40-percent. Some of this increase will likely be offset as reduced ice cover 

extends the navigation season. Shoreline damage due to high lake levels is likely to decrease 

40- to 80-percent due to reduced water levels. 
Chapter 3: The Environment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

22

Adaptations

A reduction in lake and river levels would require adaptations such as re-engineering of ship 

docks and locks for transportation and recreation. If flows decrease while demand increases, 

international commissions focusing on Great Lakes water issues are likely to become even

more important in the future. Improved forecasts and warnings of extreme precipitation events 

could help reduce some related impacts. 

2. Agricultural Shifts

Agriculture is of vital importance to this region, the nation, and the world. It has exhibited a 

capacity to adapt to moderate differences in growing season climate, and it is likely that 

agriculture would be able to continue to adapt. With an increase in the length of the growing 

season, double cropping—the practice of planting a second crop after the first is harvested—is 

likely to become more prevalent. The CO2 fertilization effect is likely to enhance plant growth 

and contribute to generally higher yields. The largest increases are projected to occur in the 

northern areas of the region, where crop yields are currently temperature-limited. However, 

yields are not likely to increase in all parts of the region. For example, in the southern portions of 

Indiana and Illinois, corn yields are likely to decline, with 10–20 percent decreases projected in 

some locations. Consumers are likely to pay lower prices due to generally increased yields, 

while most producers are likely to suffer reduced profits due to declining prices. Increased use 

of pesticides and herbicides are very likely to be required and to present new challenges. 

Adaptations

Plant breeding programs can use skilled climate predictions to aid in breeding new varieties for 

the new growing conditions. Farmers can then choose varieties that are better attuned to the 

expected climate. It is likely that plant breeders will need to use all the tools of plant breeding, 

including genetic engineering, in adapting to climate change. Changing planting and harvest 

dates and planting densities, and using integrated pest management, conservation tillage, and 

new farm technologies are additional options. There is also the potential for shifting or 

expanding the area where certain crops are grown if climate conditions become more favorable. 

Weather conditions during the growing season are the primary factor in year-to-year differences 

in corn and soybean yields. Droughts and floods result in large yield reductions; severe 

droughts, like the drought of 1988, cause yield reductions of more than 30 percent. Reliable 

seasonal forecasts are likely to help farmers adjust their practices from year-to-year to respond 

to such events.

3. Changes in Semi-natural and Natural Ecosystems

The Upper Midwest has a unique combination of soil and climate that allows for abundant 

coniferous tree growth. Higher temperatures and increased evaporation will likely reduce boreal 

forest acreage and make current forestlands more susceptible to pests and diseases. It is likely 

that the southern transition zone of the boreal forest will be susceptible to expansion of 

temperate forests, which in turn will have to compete with other land use pressures. However, 

warmer weather (coupled with beneficial effects of increased CO2

), are likely to lead to an 

increase in tree growth rates on marginal forestlands that are currently temperature-limited. 

Most climate models indicate that higher air temperatures will cause greater evaporation and 

hence, reduced soil moisture, a situation conducive to forest fires. As the 21st century 

progresses, there will be an increased likelihood of greater environmental stress on both 
Chapter 3: The Environment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

23

deciduous and coniferous trees, making them susceptible to disease and pest infestation, likely 

resulting in increased tree mortality. 

As water temperatures in lakes increase, major changes in freshwater ecosystems will very 

likely occur, such as a shift from coldwater fish species (e.g., trout) to warmer water species, 

(e.g., bass and catfish). Warmer water is also likely to create an environment more susceptible 

to invasions by non-native species. Runoff of excess nutrients (such as nitrogen and 

phosphorus from fertilizer) into lakes and rivers is likely to increase due to the increase in heavy 

precipitation events. This, coupled with warmer lake temperatures, is likely to stimulate the 

growth of algae, depleting the water of oxygen to the detriment of other living things. Declining 

lake levels are likely to cause large impacts to the current distribution of wetlands. There is 

some chance that some wetlands could gradually migrate, but in areas where their migration is 

limited by the topography, they would disappear. Changes in bird populations and other native 

wildlife have already been linked to increasing temperatures, and more changes are likely in the 

future. Wildlife populations are particularly susceptible to climate extremes due to the effects of 

drought on their food sources. 

Climate Change and The Great Lakes 

At various times throughout its history, the Great Lakes basin has been covered by thick 

glaciers and tropical forests, but these changes occurred before humans occupied the basin. 

Present-day concern about the atmosphere is premised on the belief that society at large—

through its means of production and modes of daily activity, especially by ever-increasing

carbon dioxide emissions—may be modifying the climate at a rate unprecedented in history. 

The very prevalent “greenhouse effect” is actually a natural phenomenon. It is a process by 

which water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere absorb heat given off by the earth and 

radiate it back to the surface. Consequently the earth remains warm and habitable: 16 °C 

average world temperature rather than -18 °C without the greenhouse effect. However, humans 

have increased the carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution 

from 280 parts per million to the present 350 ppm, and some predict that the concentration will 

reach twice its pre-industrial levels by the middle of the next century. 

Climatologists, using the General Circulation Model (GCM), have been able to determine the 

manner in which the increase of carbon dioxide emissions will affect the climate in the Great 

Lakes basin. Several of these models exist and show that at twice the carbon dioxide level, the 

climate of the basin will be warmer by 2–4 °C and slightly damper than at present. For example, 

Toronto's climate would resemble the present climate of southern Ohio. Warmer climates mean 

increased evaporation from the lake surfaces and evapotranspiration from the land surface of 

the basin. This in turn will augment the percentage of precipitation that is returned to the 

atmosphere. Studies have shown that the resulting net basin supply—the amount of water 

contributed by each lake basin to the overall hydrologic system—will be decreased by 23- to 50-

percent. The resulting decreases in average lake levels will be from 1⁄2 to 2 meters, depending 

on the GCM used. 

Large declines in lake levels would create large-scale economic concern for the commercial 

users of the water system. Shipping companies and hydroelectric power companies would 

suffer economic repercussions, and harbors and marinas would be adversely affected. While 

the precision of such projections remains uncertain, the possibility of their accuracy embraces 

important long-term implications for the Great Lakes. 
Chapter 3: The Environment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

24

The decline in lake levels and a warmer climate would also impact the islands in the Great 

Lakes. Vegetation would change on some islands as growing conditions evolve. Non-native 

species of plants and wildlife will pioneer onto some islands. Declining water levels will also 

expose more shoal habitat and beaches. In general, island sizes will increase, and some 

nearshore islands will become connected to the mainland. These connections to the mainland 

will speed the establishment of invasive plant species and provide corridors for predators to 

impact nesting waterbird colonies.

Island Types, Geology, and Soils

Island systems in the Great Lakes vary greatly in both diversity and complexity. While some 

island areas are characterized by several large islands with similar features, other areas contain 

hundreds of islands with variable shorelines and features but are highly integrated in ecological 

functions. Islands can be categorized by the following categories: 

• Resistant Rock – Precambrian islands of basalt and granite dominate the northern 

shores of Lake Superior, Lake Huron, and the St. Lawrence River. Islands on the 

southern shore of Lake Superior are composed of Precambrian and Cambrian 

sandstones.

• Non-resistant Rock – Limestone and dolomite are represented on many islands in 

northern Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario. 

• Unconsolidated Sediments – Islands, such as Turkey Island in the Detroit River can 

include fine sediments and cobbles that can accumulate on reefs in Lake Superior. 

Deltaic islands are at the mouths of rivers, especially the St. Clair River.

• Anthropogenic – Islands that are not natural and are artificially created can also include 

key biodiversity significance for birds and fish. Types of artificial islands include 

breakwaters, breakwalls, and caution points.

• Floating – Floating islands can be characterized as marsh ‘mats’ that can occur in some 

wetlands.

Islands of the Great Lakes support globally rare ecosystems called alvars. Alvars are open 

areas of flat limestone or marble bedrock with little or no soil and a usually sparse covering of 

herbs and shrubs. Trees are either absent or sparse. The vegetation and animals of alvars are 

distinctive—only certain species can withstand the extreme environmental conditions. Alvars 

typically have poor drainage of rain and snow; so they are flooded in the spring and dry later in 

the summer. Alvars with exposed bedrock absorb heat from the sun and become extremely hot 

in the summer. A high proportion of the alvars that exist in the world is present only in the Great 

Lakes islands and coastal areas.

Archeological and Cultural Values 

Gravel Island NWR (Horicon)

Established in 1913 and consisting of Gravel and Spider Islands, Gravel Island NWR has not 

been subjected to a comprehensive cultural resources field survey. There are no known cultural 
Chapter 3: The Environment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

25

sites on the islands, and because of their size and topography the likelihood of significant sites 

seems low.

Green Bay NWR (Horicon)

Green Bay NWR consists of three islands, Hog, Pilot, and Plum. No cultural resources survey 

has been conducted on Hog Island, and the likelihood of finding significant sites on the island 

seems low. 

Pilot Island was acquired in 2007. It has a standing 1858 lighthouse/keeper’s quarters and a 

circa 1900 fog signal building. Both were placed on the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP) under one nomination on November 21, 1983 (Reference # 83004279). The 

lighthouse/keeper’s quarters is in fair to good shape but shows signs of increasing wear on the 

light-colored brick façade and in the wooden doors/windows. After some interior water damage, 

the roof was replaced in 2009. The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) maintains the light. The fog 

signal building is in fair to poor shape due to the collapse of the roof, which threatens to 

severely damage the brick superstructure. Removing, and perhaps replacing, the collapsed 

roof and shoring up the walls should be a top cultural resources priority. 

The remaining portion of Pilot Island has not been subjected to a cultural resources survey and 

other sites are possible on those areas with intact soil development. However, the island has 

become a busy nesting ground for cormorants and gulls, which has killed off most of the 

vegetation. There are three or more shipwrecks in one location in 20 to 50 feet of water just off 

Pilot Island to the northwest. It is very popular place for local divers. Placed on the NRHP on 

March 19, 1992 (Reference #92000103), the site is not currently on Service lands. However, it 

is possible that parts of the site may wash up on Pilot Island sometime in the future.

Plum Island was added to the Green Bay NWR along with Pilot Island in 2007. Plum Island was 

reserved from the public domain in 1848 for lighthouse purposes and contains a number of 

historic buildings and related structures as well as archaeological sites. The 1897 rear range 

light was placed on the NRHP on July 19, 1984 (Reference #84003659). Nine standing 

buildings/structures and one site, including the front range light (1964), the original keeper’s 

dwelling (1897), a fog signal building (circa 1900), the USCG lifesaving station (1896), and a 

boathouse (circa 1930), as well as the pier and breakwater, a flagpole, an outbuilding, a radio 

tower, and the unimproved access road/path connecting the north and south side of the island 

were added to the NRHP as a district on June 24, 2010 (Reference #10000385). These NRHP 

sites on Plum Island are in fair to good condition. The NRHP sites on both Plum and Pilot 

Islands are undergoing stabilization and restoration work under a partnership agreement with 

the Friends of Plum and Pilot Islands (FOPPI). 

Five additional archaeological sites are known on Plum Island. These include the undressed 

fieldstone foundation of the original 1848 Port des Morts Lighthouse, the Hanson Site (a Middle 

Archaic Period Old Copper Culture copper knife findspot), the Plum Island Light Site (a 

residential dump associated with the light keeper’s dwelling), the North Shore Site (a lithic and 

historic artifact scatter), and the Station Dump Site (the location of a dump associated with the 

lifesaving station). Two historic Native American (possibly Potawatomi) sites are suspected to 

exist on Plum Island but have never been confirmed by field survey. These include a campsite 

and corn garden beds. It seems likely that there are additional archaeological sites yet to be 

found if a comprehensive field survey is conducted. 
Chapter 3: The Environment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

26

At least six shipwrecks have been recorded just off the shores of Plum Island. Items from some 

of these sites appear to have been washing up on the island. There is also evidence of 

paleontological fossils within the limestone bedrock of the island.

Harbor Island NWR (Seney)

Acquired in 1983 and consisting of only Harbor Island, past human influences to the vegetation 

of Harbor Island NWR are still found. According to records at Seney NWR, no cultural surveys 

have been conducted on the island. At acquisition, at least one 1950s or 1960s era house was 

removed from the island. Based on the size of the island, its location relative to other islands, 

the vegetation present and other indicators, prehistoric and historic sites are likely to be present. 

Huron NWR (Seney)

Established in 1905, Huron NWR is the oldest refuge in the Midwest Region. The refuge 

encompasses eight islands including Lighthouse (West Huron), McIntyre (East Huron), Gull 

(Gull Rock), Cattle, and four small unnamed islands.

The most visible cultural resources on Huron NWR are the Huron Islands Lighthouse and 

Assistant Keeper’s Quarters. The lighthouse, consisting of a keeper’s residence and integrated 

light tower, was originally constructed in 1868 on Lighthouse Island as a navigational aid. It was 

fully automated in 1972 and was essentially abandoned along with the 1934 Assistant Keeper’s 

Quarters and the other facilities. 

Other facilities on the island include a brick privy (1898), an oil house (1896), a pre-1914 barn 

site, a fog signal building (1898), a 1961 barracks, pre-1966 landing, dock and boathouse on the 

northwest tip of the island; quarry, boat, and breakwater (1877 to 1892) on the southwest side of 

island, and a boathouse (1913), as well as a small support building and a new dock installed in 

2009. Additional facilities on Lighthouse Island that were associated with lighthouse operations 

prior to automation include: a 1-mile long footpath—750 feet of which are cement walkway and 

stairs, a 300 foot tramway, and two footbridges.

Only the lighthouse itself was placed on the NRHP on September 2, 1975 (Reference 

#75000955). But, as of December 7, 2004, the other facilities associated with the lighthouse, 

except perhaps the barracks (less than 50 years old at the time of review), were considered to 

be eligible for listing on the NRHP by the Service. The preservation and maintenance of the 

NRHP site and associated structures are being addressed under a Memorandum of 

Understanding with the Huron Island Lighthouse Preservation Association, which is currently in 

place until July 26, 2019. 

Lighthouse Island is the only island with visible buildings/structures. However, there is reported 

to be a small dilapidated cabin and associated brick pile somewhere on the western end of 

McIntyre Island. There are no known archeological sites on any of the islands, mainly because 

no formal surveys have been performed on the refuge. However, there is moderate potential for 

archeological site discovery on the two largest islands, Lighthouse and McIntyre, and low 

potential on Cattle and Gull Islands. The four unnamed islands are small rocky outcrops with 

essentially no potential for finding archaeological sites.
Chapter 3: The Environment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

27

Michigan Islands NWR (Seney, Lake Michigan Islands; Shiawassee, 

Lake Huron Islands)

Established in 1947, the Michigan Islands NWR currently consists of four islands in Lake 

Michigan including Gull, Hat, Pismire, and Shoe and five islands in Lake Huron including 

Thunder Bay, Sugar, Scarecrow, Big Charity, and Little Charity. An overview study of 

archeological and cultural values on the islands in both Lakes Michigan and Huron (except Big 

Charity and Little Charity) was conducted by Commonwealth Cultural Resources Group, Inc. in 

2000 (Robertson et al., 2000). The Commonwealth report was forwarded to the Michigan State 

Historic Preservation Officer in October 2000. 

A summary of the findings for the Lake Michigan islands indicates that there are no previously 

recorded archeological sites on Hat, Shoe, or Pismire Islands. Gull Island, according to General 

Land Office survey notes, had a fishing village, four log shanties, and a few Native American 

wigwams on the east side of the island. There are no existing, previously recorded, historical 

above-ground resources on any of the four islands. Hat, Shoe, and Pismire Islands are rated as 

having a low potential for archeological sites due to their small size and limited elevation above 

the lake. Gull Island is rated as having a high potential for both prehistoric and historic 

archeological sites on habitable portions of the island.

Except for Scarecrow Island, the islands of Thunder Bay and Sugar within Thunder Bay of Lake 

Huron are known to contain standing structures and archaeological sites. Thunder Bay Island 

contains an 1832 standing lighthouse and associated buildings on the southern tip of the island. 

While on the NRHP (Reference #84001371), these structures are not on Service lands and are 

managed by the Thunder Bay Island Preservation Society. Also not on Service property is an 

extant USCG lifesaving station/boathouse in the shallows on the west side of the island.

However, there are five other known archaeological sites within Service lands on Thunder Bay 

Island. These include a portion of an archaeological complex associated with the 1832 

lighthouse and its associated buildings, a 19th century lifesaving/fishing house complex, the 19th

century Harwood’s fish house, the 19th century Hood’s fishing cooperage (not field confirmed 

however ), a 20th century dump site. On Sugar Island, archaeologists have identified two 

archaeological sites including the 19th/20th century McDonald/Paxton’s Fish House and an 

unnamed 19th century fish house complex. While Native American use of both islands is known 

historically, no sites associated with their use can be confirmed at this time. However, the 

probability of finding additional archaeological sites on these two islands remains high. 

Conversely, the probability of finding archaeological sites on Scarecrow Island is low. 

Within Saginaw Bay of Lake Huron are the islands of Big Charity and Little Charity. The Service 

owns all of Little Charity but not all of Big Charity. No known sites are located on Little Charity 

Island and the probability of finding any sites seems low. Big Charity Island has a light tower 

with attached keeper’s house on the northwest tip of the island. However, currently the house is 

in private hands, and the tower is owned by The Nature Conservancy (TNC). The Service has a 

three-acre easement with the conservancy, which excludes the tower (along with a 100-foot 

buffer). Therefore, to clarify, neither the house nor the tower are on Service property. Also, not 

on Service property is a long dock complex dredged into the island, which provides boat access 

for visitors. There are no known archaeological sites on the island. However, if a 

comprehensive field survey was conducted it seems likely that sites would be found. 
Chapter 3: The Environment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

28

Social and Economic Context

Currently the Great Lakes basin is home to more than one-tenth of the population of the United 

States and one-quarter of the population of Canada. Some of the world's largest concentrations 

of industrial capacity are located in the Great Lakes Region. Nearly 25 percent of the total 

Canadian agricultural production and 7 percent of the American production are located in the 

basin. The United States considers the Great Lakes a fourth seacoast, and the Great Lakes 

Region is a dominant factor in the Canadian industrial economy. 

Agriculture

Early settlers were attracted to the Great Lakes Region because of its agricultural lands. Dairy 

and meat production for local consumption became the dominant agriculture. As time went by, 

the growing urban populations created a demand for specialty crops such as fruits, vegetables,

and tobacco. Today, corn, soybeans, and hay are the primary crops in the Great Lakes Region. 

The northwestern region of Michigan's Lower Peninsula is known for its cherry production.

Commercial and Sport Fisheries 

Sport and commercial harvest fisheries are important industries in the Great Lakes Region. 

Commercial fishing began in about 1820 and has increased ever since. About 65 million pounds 

of fish per year are harvested from the lakes, contributing more than $1 billion to the Great 

Lakes economy. Primary commercial catches include whitefish, smelt, walleye, and perch, while 

sport anglers prefer salmon, steelhead, walleye, lake trout, perch and bass. The commercial 

fishery in the region has been declining, however, due to over-fishing, pollution, habitat 

destruction, and the introduction of invasive species.

Sport fishing is a significant tourist attraction, which helps to build the economy of the Great 

Lakes Region. Sport fishing contributes $4 billion to the region’s economy. Sport fishing has 

also been responsible for the unintended introduction of some invasive species. Exotic fish such 

as salmon were purposely introduced to help boost the sport fishing industry.

Shipping

The history of shipping practices in the Great Lakes begins in 1825, when the Erie Canal was 

used to carry settlers west and to carry freight east. The St. Lawrence Seaway was completed 

in 1959 and allowed ocean vessels access to the Great Lakes for shipping purposes. More than 

200 million tons of cargo is shipped every year through the Great Lakes. The three main 

cargoes are iron ore, coal, and grain. Other modes of transportation such as trucking and 

railroads now compete with shipping in the Great Lakes, and thus shipping has not expanded 

much recently. Historically, shipping has been the vector for most of the invasive species in the 

Great Lakes.

Recreation and Tourism 

The Great Lakes provide a popular tourist attraction. The region is home to many park systems, 

conservation and wilderness areas, and beaches. Fishing, diving, and boating are a few of the 

many recreational activities in the region. One-third of all registered boaters in the United States

reside in the Great Lakes basin. Recreation and tourism serve as important economic 
Chapter 3: The Environment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

29

contributors to many parts of the Great Lakes Region. Boats, marinas, resorts, restaurants, and 

the production and sale of outdoor sports equipment all contribute to the region's economy.

Industry

Industrialization of the Great Lakes Region began in the early 20th century. There were many 

harmful environmental impacts of early industrialization, but many are being assessed and fixed 

today. Historically, the major industries in the Great Lakes Region have produced steel, paper, 

chemicals, automobiles, and other manufactured goods. Auto manufacturing and steel 

production continue to be the primary industries in the region. 

Environmental Contaminants

More than 400 different man-made chemicals have been detected in Great Lakes biota. 

Research and monitoring have focused on heavy metals such as mercury, organochlorine 

pesticides such as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), dieldrin, and mirex; and other 

chlorinated organics such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), hexachlorobenzene (HCB), 

dioxins, and furans. All of these contaminants have been detected in Herring Gull eggs and are 

routinely measured. Today, the Herring Gull continues to be recognized as one of the major 

indicator species for environmental contamination in the Great Lakes.

Levels of some contaminants in Herring Gull eggs have remained relatively stable throughout 

the 1990s, with no significant changes observed in levels of PCBs and DDE at some Great Lake 

colonies. A few significant decreases in levels of dieldrin and heptachlor epoxide have been 

noted during this period.

This relative "steady state" in contaminant levels indicates that these chemicals are still being 

released and/or recycled through the Great Lakes ecosystem by individuals, households, 

municipalities, industry, and/or agriculture. Atmospheric deposition, agricultural land runoff, the 

slow movement (leaching) of discarded stocks of pesticides and other chemicals from landfill 

sites and agricultural soils into the Great Lakes via groundwater, and the resuspension of 

contaminated lake/river sediments, continue to be major indirect sources of contamination. 

These indirect sources are difficult to control and contribute slow, but continual, contaminant 

inputs into the Great Lakes ecosystem. Atmospheric deposition has become an increasingly 

significant route of entry of contaminants into the Great Lakes ecosystem, especially in the 

Upper Great Lakes. On Lake Superior, for example, up to 90 percent of toxic contaminants 

entering this lake comes from the atmosphere in the form of precipitation.

While concentrations of some persistent toxic substances have been significantly reduced in the 

Great Lakes over the past 30 years, toxins such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are still 

present above levels considered safe for humans and wildlife warranting fish consumption 

advisories in all five Great Lakes. In addition, chemicals of emerging concern, such as 

pharmaceuticals, are now being detected in the Great Lakes.

Natural Resources

Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Communities

Gravel Island NWR
Chapter 3: The Environment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

30

Gravel Island

Gravel Island is a small, 4-acre flat-topped island with an elevation of approximately ten feet. 

Gravel Island has no permanent vegetation due to periodic over washing by waves and ice 

during high-water years. Jedziewicz (2001) reported no vascular plants present during his visit 

to the island in July 1999. However, low-water years allow several plants to pioneer on Gravel 

Island. In August 2004, refuge staff recorded 21 species, including American sea rocket (Cakile 

edentula), a state species of concern. Besides sea rocket, vegetative composition of Gravel 

Island is very similar to that of Spider Island.

Gravel Island is covered almost entirely by a matrix of Herring Gull and Ring-billed Gull nests 

except for the northeast portion of the island, where state endangered Caspian Terns nest. With 

1,390 nests in 2012, this is the largest Caspian Tern colony in the Great Lakes Region. 

Common Terns and Great Black-backed Gulls have also been observed nesting in recent years. 

Like Spider Island, Gravel Island provides important habitat for migrating birds. The eastern 

shores of Gravel Island provide important shorebird habitat during low-water conditions. 

Spider Island

Spider Island is a 23-acre island with an elevation of about 14 feet at the highest point. Spider 

Island was surveyed in 1905. At that time, the island was dominated by white cedar (Thuja 

occidentalis), tamarack (Larix laricina), and white birch (Betula papyrifera), with boreal forest 

and Great Lakes shoreline understory species such as blue flag iris (Iris virginica), wood lily 

(Lilium philadelphicum), and Indian paintbrush (Castilleja coccinea) (Jedziewicz, 2001). By 

1966, nesting Ring-billed and Herring Gulls and Great Blue Herons had reduced the forest to 

only a few standing trees, abundant Canada yew (Taxus canadensis) with the shrubs, red-osier 

dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), red raspberry (Rubus sp.), and red elderberry (Sambucus 

racemosa). The activities of the nesting gulls, herons, and later Double-crested Cormorants 

reduced the white cedar, tamarack, and white birch overstory of the mid-1900s to a single snag 

in 2009. 

Today, Spider Island is mostly a mixture of exotic herbs. A few sandbar willow (Salix exigua) 

and eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides) saplings are pioneering in the low-lying area near 

the north end of the island. Common mallow (Malva neglecta), tumble mustard (Sisymbrium 

altissimum), and wormseed mustard (Erysimum cheiranthoides) are the dominant species on 

the Spider Island.

A large Double-crested Cormorant colony interspersed amongst a matrix of Herring Gull nests 

covers most of the island. Waterfowl use is limited since there is very sparse vegetation, but this 

vegetation does provide some cover for scattered nesting of species like Mallards, Black Ducks, 

and Canada Geese. Killdeer, Ring-billed Gulls, and the non-native Mute Swan have also been 

observed nesting on the island.

Spider Island provides valuable rest stops for migrating birds traveling across open water. 

Approximately 6 acres of fissured, depressed dolomite pavement support shallow pools, which 

warm and provide food for migrating shorebirds. Ruddy Turnstones, Piping Plovers, Dunlins, 

Semi-palmated Sandpipers, Least Sandpipers, Pectoral Sandpipers, and Sanderlings feed in 

these areas along the eastern shore of the island. Additionally, Hooded Mergansers, Bluewinged Teal, Common Mergansers, Mallards, and American Wigeon were observed feeding 
Chapter 3: The Environment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

31

and loafing on these shorelines during fall migration. Horned Larks, Savannah Sparrows, and 

American Pipits have also been observed resting on the island.

Green Bay NWR

Hog Island 

Two-acre Hog Island rises approximately 20 feet above lake level. Remnant forest still exists on 

the flat top of the island; however, due to colonial bird activity many overstory trees are dead or 

stressed and the understory is dominated by invasive or weedy species. A few white birch 

(Betula papyrifera) and chokecherry (Prunus virginiana) are in the overstory. Red elderberry 

(Sambucus racemosa) forms a dominant and nearly impassable shrub layer, some Canada yew 

(Taxus canadensis) is still present. Intertwined among the elderberry or interspersed in open 

areas is a dense herbaceous mixture of weedy or exotic species; fringed bindweed (Polygonum 

cilinode) and American black currant (Ribes americanum) dominate.

Limestone ledges, which form broad steps around three-fourths of the island are barren. The 

remaining quarter of the shoreline has slopes that are covered with vegetation between the 

heavy woody cover and the bare wave-washed rocks of the lakeshore. A long gravel spit on the 

northwest corner of the island protrudes northwestward, branching out at the tip.

Hog Island supports a nesting colony of Herring Gulls, which nest around the perimeter of the 

island on the open areas. Great Blue Herons, Black-crowned Night-Herons, and Great Egrets 

nest in trees on the island interior, and Red-breasted Merganser nests can be found hidden in 

the limestone ledges. Sandbar willows (Salix exigua) on the gravel spit provide cover for nesting 

waterfowl like Mallards, Black Ducks, and Canada Geese. Recently, Double-crested 

Cormorants have attempted to nest on the island, and active control measures are taken to 

remove the birds and prevent change to woody vegetation.

Pilot Island

In 2007, 3.7-acre Pilot Island was added to the Green Bay NWR. This is the site of a formerlyoccupied lighthouse (est.1851) and contains a variety of native and ornamental vegetation. Pilot 

Island was surveyed in the1970s; at that time the vegetation was composed of red-osier 

dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), lilacs (Syringa vulgaris), Canada yew (Taxus canadensis), white 

cedar (Thuja occidentalis), willow (Salix sp.), white birch (Betula papyrifera), and poison ivy 

(Toxicodendron radicans) (Jedziewicz, 2001). By the 1980s, the activities of nesting gulls, 

herons, and later Double-crested Cormorants drastically changed the vegetative composition. 

Vegetation today consists of a shrub layer dominated by chokecherry (Prunus virginiana) and 

Red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa). Intertwined among the elderberry or interspersed in 

open areas is a dense herbaceous mixture of weedy or exotic species. Bittersweet nightshade 

(Solanum dulcamara), catnip (Nepeta cataria), and common mallow (Malva neglecta) are the 

most frequently occurring species on Pilot Island.

A large Double-crested Cormorant colony covers much of the island, nesting in the formerly 

forested area. Hundreds of Herring Gull nests are on the rocks and boulders of the shoreline 

and on the open area in the center of the island. The vegetation provides some cover for 

scattered nesting waterfowl species like Red-breasted Mergansers, Mallards, and Canada 

Geese.
Chapter 3: The Environment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

32

Plum Island

Plum Island was added to the Green Bay NWR along with Pilot Island in 2007. Plum Island was 

reserved from the public domain in 1848 for lighthouse purposes and contains a number of 

historic buildings and related structures including the front and rear range lights, the original 

keeper’s quarters, a fog signal building, the USCG station, and a substantial boathouse and 

dock. 

The island is 325 acres, has an elevation of 620 feet, and is surrounded by rocky shoals. Plum 

Island was visited in 1974; at that time old-growth sugar maple and basswood forest existed in 

the interior with a dense Canada yew understory. In addition, no deer were reported (Huntoon, 

1977). The forest has since been impacted by heavy selective logging in the 1980s and deer 

herbivory. The logging left the canopy open, and pioneering species such as red raspberry and 

invasive species have colonized these areas. The east and south coast bluffs are dominated by 

white cedar. A 15-acre sedge meadow and shallow emergent wetland are on the northeastern 

part of the island. The wetland is directly connected to the lake and experiences the same 

changes in water levels. The rising and falling of the water on a seasonal basis and over longer 

periods creates a dynamic system of change. In low-water years, a calcareous meadow 

dominated by brook lobelia (Lobelia kalmia), rushes (Juncus spp.) and St. Johnswort

(Hypericum L) is exposed. The sedge meadow is dominated by bluejoint (Calamagrostis 

canadensis) and tussock sedge (Carex stricta). The federally threatened dwarf lake iris (Iris 

lacustris) is present along a strip of boreal forest along the northeast shoreline.

Migrating and Breeding Birds – Refuge staff has detected more than 70 species during the 

breeding season on Plum Island. The ubiquitous American Redstart has been observed more 

than twice as often as the next most common species (in order: House Wren, Indigo Bunting, 

Red-eyed Vireo, Red-winged Blackbird). Canada Geese, Wood Ducks, Mallards, Bald Eagles, 

American Woodcock, and Northern Flicker are among the Midwest Region (Region 3)

conservation priorities that use Plum Island during the breeding season.

Plum Island also provides valuable rest stops for birds migrating across open water. In early 

May, densities approaching 60 birds/hectare (up to 17 species/hectare) have been recorded in 

some forest habitats. Seven species of Wood Warblers and up to 25 Yellow-rumped Warblers 

per tree, in some locales, have been observed. 

Mammals – Refuge staff has conducted trapping efforts to obtain a baseline inventory of 

mammals. The only species captured was deer mice. White-tailed deer are present and are 

seen intermittently, and raccoon tracks have been observed on the island. It does not appear 

that insectivores, lagomorphs, small carnivores, or other rodents have been able to successfully 

colonize the island, although it should be large enough to support at least some of these 

species.

Reptiles and Amphibians – Coverboard and call surveys have been conducted on Plum Island 

to obtain a baseline inventory of reptiles and amphibians. Six species were observed during 

coverboard sampling: common garter snake, brown snake, western fox snake, northern 

ringneck snake, blue-spotted salamander, and central newt. A strong chorus of northern spring 

peepers along with several individual American toads and eastern gray tree frogs were recorded 

on the call surveys. Incidental to other work on Plum Island, staff observed several northern 

water snakes. American toads on Plum Island exhibit island gigantism phenomenon; they are 

much larger in comparison to their mainland relatives.
Chapter 3: The Environment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

33

Fish – According to the Atlas of the Spawning and Nursery Areas of the Great Lakes Fishes, the 

shoals surrounding the refuge islands are historic spawning beds for lake trout and several 

other Great Lakes fish species. The island reefs and shorelines provide coastal habitat required 

by these species to complete their lifecycles. Carp spawn by the hundreds in the Plum Island 

harbor and can be seen in high-water years in the Plum Island wetland.

Harbor Island NWR

During past observations, 149 species 

of fauna (16 mammal species, 7 

herptofaunal species, and 126 bird 

species) have been observed (see 

Appendix D). Fourteen Region 3 Birds of 

Concern Species have been observed 

on or near Harbor Island NWR: 

American Bittern, Black-crowned NightHerons, Trumpeter Swan, Canada 

Goose, American Black Duck, Lesser 

Scaup, Wood Duck, Mallard, Bluewinged Teal, Bald Eagle, Common Tern, 

Black Tern, Whip-poor-will, and 

Northern Flicker. Of special note is that 

in 1965–1978 Louis Benua visited 

Harbor Island and nearby islands and 

noted a number of large predators, including the federally threatened Canada Lynx (Lynx 

canadensis). Although no records of black bear exist in refuge files, this species, too, is thought 

to use the island.

Wildlife harvest regulations for deer and bear on the refuge are the same as State of Michigan 

regulations, and management of the white-tailed deer populations is of primary concern. A 1978 

pre-acquisition survey indicated a year-round deer population and island vegetation was 

showing the stress imposed by overabundant deer. Other mammals reported include snowshoe 

hare, beaver, little brown bat, red bat, woodland deer mouse, red-backed vole, and mink. Gray 

wolves (Canis lupus) from St. Joseph Island, Ontario hunt the island during the winter months. 

Several other species have been reported on Bald Island just east of Harbor Island and are 

expected to be visitors to the refuge.

During past observations, 127 species of flora have been observed (Appendix E). Four major 

vegetative associations are on the island. Areas containing northern white cedar and balsam fir

predominate. The next most prevalent community is a mixed upland community containing red 

oak, sugar maple, trembling aspen, white ash, and paper birch. The red oak, in particular, is 

quite impressive, growing very well on the soils of the island. Marsh is around the interior bay 

and along the northeast side of the island. Some acreage of open field is just inland from the 

bay. The species composition is unknown but likely contains timothy, Canada bluegrass, and 

other species based on similar abandoned agricultural sites in the Upper Peninsula. Figure 3-1 

shows the major vegetative associations and is adapted from the unpublished plant community 

survey by Selzer (2000). 

Harbor Island NWR
Chapter 3: The Environment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

34

Figure 3-1: Vegetative Associations, Harbor Island NWR (2009)
Chapter 3: The Environment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

35

Huron NWR

In post-glacial times, the islands that now comprise Huron NWR have been modified by 

changes in water levels and isostatic rebound following glacial retreat. Thus, the islands, and 

their biota are relatively young, on the order of 8,000- to 15,000-years before present (Soule,

1993). Most wildlife use at Huron NWR involves migratory birds, especially forest-dependent 

species. However, a small mammal community is present. Past surveys (e.g., Corin, 1976) have 

documented 93 species of fauna (79 bird species, 8 mammal species, 6 herptofaunal species). 

Eight Region 3 Birds of Concern Species have been documented on the Huron Islands: Canada 

Goose, American Black Duck, Mallard, Bald Eagle, Peregrine Falcon, Northern Flicker, Canada 

Warbler, and Bobolink (which is likely a migrant). 

Four islands of Huron NWR are vegetated; the remaining islands are barren outcrops of granite. 

Vegetation surveys have documented 157 species of flora. The vegetated islands are generally 

characterized by shallowly rooted trees and exposed granite. Vegetation is a boreal transition 

type made up of balsam fir, white pine, red pine, white spruce, red maple, bigtooth aspen, and 

paper birch. Much of the balsam fir is decadent and contributes to a significant fuel loading on 

Huron Island NWR. The understory contains cherry species, balsam fir regeneration, Canada 

yew, various woody shrubs, grasses, and forbs. There are a few areas on East Huron that 

contain small sphagnum bogs with an occasional black spruce. Only Huron, East Huron, Cattle,

and Gull Rock Islands have substantial vegetation.

Michigan Islands NWR (Seney)

During past observations, 69 bird species and two mammal species (deer mouse, Peromyscus 

maniculatus; snowshoe hare, Lepus americanus) have been observed at Michigan Islands 

NWR. Of these 69 bird species, nine are Region 3 Birds of Concern Species: Common Loon, 

Caspian Tern, American Bittern, Black-crowned Night-Heron, Canada Goose, Lesser Scaup, 

Mallard, Bald Eagle, Northern Harrier, and American Woodcock.

Each of the islands of Michigan Islands NWR support breeding colonial waterbirds. Herring 

Gulls nest on Shoe Island each year; intermittently, Ring-billed Gulls nest at this location. 

Pismire Island supports both species of gulls and Double-crested Cormorants. Gull and Hat 

Islands host the greatest numbers and diversity of species. Over the past ten years, these 

islands have supported both Ring-billed and Herring Gulls, Great Blue Herons, Black–crowned 

Night-Herons, Double-crested Cormorants, Common Terns, and Caspian Terns. Other avian 

species are breeding on these islands, including shorebirds (Spotted Sandpipers and Killdeer), 

waterfowl and a variety of landbirds. Due to its larger size and more diverse habitats, Gull Island 

supports a greater diversity of landbirds, including raptors and songbirds. 

Michigan Islands NWR has exceptional value to colonial nesting waterbird conservation in the 

Great Lakes Region and specific islands have been proposed as an Important Bird Area by the 

National Audubon Society for species such as Black-crowned Night-Heron (Gull Island) and 

Caspian Tern (Hat Island). And not surprisingly, many past studies have been conducted on 

population biology and the natural history of species inhabiting these islands, such as Caspian 

Tern (Shugart et al., 1979; Cuthbert, 1985; Cuthbert, 1988; Wires and Cuthbert, 2000) and 

Double-crested Cormorant (Cuthbert, 2002; Seefelt and Gillingham, 2004, 2006a,b, 2008; Wires 

and Cuthbert, 2006). 

According to Hatt et al. (1948) an ornithologist, Charles L. Cass, visited Shoe Island in July 

1896 and found nesting Caspian Terns at this site. Caspian Terns have nested on Shoe Island 
Chapter 3: The Environment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

36

or nearby Hat Island since Cass’ first report, often changing islands in response to fluctuating 

water levels. In the late 1980s, 437 nesting pairs were documented on Hat Island (Scharf and 

Shugart ,1998), and this site has been consistently used through the present. Hat Island is 

currently a productive colony and terns have been documented to fledge at this location most 

years since 2002 (figure 3-2). In addition, Gull Island has supported nesting Caspian Terns 

between 2002 and 2006; terns were not as successful breeding at this location. As an overview, 

between 1977 and 1997, Caspian Terns numbers increased in the Great Lakes (Cuthbert et al., 

2003). However, more recent censuses indicate that the population in Lake Michigan is 

declining (Cuthbert and Wires 2008), thus exemplifying the importance of Hat Island. Caspian 

Terns are currently listed as threatened in Michigan. 

Figure 3-2: The number of breeding Caspian Tern pairs on Gull and Hat Island (data 

provided by N. Seefelt).

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Number of Nests

Gull Island

Hat Island

? ?
Chapter 3: The Environment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

37

Double-crested Cormorants were first recorded nesting on Gull, Hat and Pismire Islands in 

1984, and these sites have been used consistently through the present (Ludwig, 1984; table 3-

1). Hat Island has become the most important colony for this species in the archipelago, and 

overall population fluctuations are consistent with this site’s breeding activity. The peak 

population in the archipelago was in 1997 (Cuthbert et al., 2003); however, the Michigan Islands 

NWR supported its largest number breeding cormorants in 2007, when no other archipelago 

sites were active. During this same year, population control measures, including both egg-oiling 

and shooting adults, began on refuge Islands and has continued to the present day. These 

activities have the potential to impact co-nesting species on these islands, as well.

Table 3-1: The number of Double-crested Cormorant pairs breeding on Gull, Hat and 

Pismire Islands, 1984–2010 (data provided by N. Seefelt)

Gull Hat Pismire Total

1984a 139 54 57 250

1989b 260 294 35 589

1997c 1887 4617 383 6887

2000 1532 4917 987 7436

2001 2013 4511 1035 7559

2002 957 3659 615 5231

2003 435* 7341 1164 8940

2004 1274 3515 725 5514

2005 2332 5289 838 8459

2006 2464 5776 512 8752

2007 2821 7942 660 11423

2008 1817 6800 300 8917

2009 1319 5480 272 7071

2010 613 3721 157 4491

a Nest count data from Ludwig (1984)

b Nest count data from Scharf and Shugart (1998)

c Nest count data from Cuthbert et al. (1997)

* Partial ground count completed by Seney NWR personnel

Black-crowned Night-Herons are a more elusive species to census. However, this species had 

been documented to nest in small numbers (6 to 7 pairs) on Hat Island between 2005 and 2008. 

In addition, these herons have nested among the tree-nesting cormorants on the southeast, 

south and western shore on Gull Island. At minimum, 20 to 24 pairs have consistently nested on 

Gull Island between 2005 and the present. Young have fledged from both islands. 

Vegetation

During past observations, 47 species of flora have been documented, with most work done at 

Gull Island (B. Leuck, Centenary College of LA, ongoing studies) and Hat Island (Gates, 1950). 

Historically, Gull and Hat Islands (and to a lesser extent Pismire Island) were the only islands 

that supported significant vegetation. However, now (due to disturbance by Double-crested 

Cormorant) only Gull Island has any significant live woody vegetation. Species on this island 
Chapter 3: The Environment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

38

include: paper birch, red maple, sugar maple, northern white cedar, balsam fir, white spruce, 

and trembling aspen. The groundcover is dominated by Canada yew. Mountain ash, red osier 

dogwood, elderberry, willow, and juniper are also present. On Hat Island there is mostly brush 

with some grass. Forest vegetative cover is limited to mostly standing dead trees due to effects 

of some nesting waterbirds. Pismire Island is covered in brush, with scattered herbaceous 

vegetation. Shoe Island, at high-lake levels, is virtually submerged, and at low-lake levels 

appears as a gravel bar with a few clumps of grass and herbs. 

Michigan Islands NWR (Shiawassee)

Big Charity

The Charity Islands are located near the mouth of Saginaw Bay, approximately 7 miles from the 

mainland. Big Charity is 250 acres in size and is heavily wooded, with an 11-acre lake in the 

center. Bald Eagles and neotropical songbirds nest on the island, and Pitcher’s thistle (federal 

and state threatened) is on the island. 

Little Charity

Little Charity Island is an undeveloped 5.4-acre island located approximately 2 miles from Big 

Charity. The island is wooded, and colonial waterbirds such as Double-crested Cormorants, 

egrets, herons, and gulls nest throughout the island.

Scarecrow Island

Scarecrow Island is a 9-acre island located in Lake Huron at the southern limit of Thunder Bay. 

This limestone bedrock island is covered with boulders and gravel, with a minimal soil layer 

supporting shrubs, scattered forbs, and a few snags, which are used by Double-crested 

Cormorants, Black-crowned Night-Herons, Common Terns, Caspian Terns, and Herring Gulls

for nesting. Ring-billed Gulls, terns, shorebirds, and waterfowl also nest on Scarecrow Island. 

Sugar Island

Sugar Island is 140 acres and is located east of Thunder Bay Island. The island was sold to 

TNC in 2009 and the Service recently acquired the island using Great Lakes Restoration 

Initiative funding. The island shoreline includes cobble beach, a limestone pavement alvar, 

scattered boulders, and freshwater, coastal wetlands. Alvars are naturally open landscapes 

formed of a thin layer of soil over limestone, and are found only in the Great Lakes Region, the 

Baltic, and in Northern Ireland. Sugar Island has a dense interior conifer forest. Tree species 

include black cherry, white cedar, balsam fir, tamarack, white pine, white spruce, balsam poplar, 

quaking aspen, and white birch. Songbirds, shorebirds, waterbirds, waterfowl, and raptors have 

been observed on the island.

Thunder Bay Island

The island supports a rare endemic Great Lakes alvar ecological community of national and 

global significance. Alvar ecosystems are grassland, savanna, and sparsely vegetated rock 

barrens that develop on flat limestone or dolomite bedrock where soils are very shallow. Plant 

communities include little bluestem alvar grassland, alvar pavement, and a limestone bedrock 

lakeshore. The thin layer of soil associated with alvar communities supports a dense interior 
Chapter 3: The Environment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

39

forest of American yew, white cedar, spruce, fir, and birch. The shoreline includes cobble beach 

and freshwater coastal wetlands. American Redstarts, Ring-billed Gulls, Herring Gulls, terns, 

and America Black Ducks nest on the island. 

Associated Plans and Initiatives

Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan

In 2005, Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) was completed to better manage wildlife species 

and their habitats of “greatest conservation need” in Michigan. The plan was developed with the 

support of funding from the State Wildlife Grant Program created by Congress in 2001. The goal 

of the plan is to provide a common strategic framework that enable Michigan's conservation 

partners to jointly implement a long-term holistic approach for the conservation of all wildlife 

species. Members of the partnership include the Michigan Department of Natural Resources

(DNR), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, The U.S. Forest Service, TNC, Michigan Natural 

Features Inventory, academics from several Michigan universities, as well as many other 

agencies and conservation organizations. 

The action plan:

• provides an ecological, habitat-based framework to aid in the conservation and 

management of wildlife;

• identifies and recommends actions to improve habitat conditions and population status 

of species with the greatest conservation need, which are those species with small or 

declining populations or other characteristics that make them vulnerable;

• recommends actions that will help to keep common species common;

• identifies and prioritizes conservation actions, research and survey needs, and long-term 

monitoring needed to assess the success of conservation efforts;

• complements other conservation strategies, funding sources, planning initiatives, and 

legally mandated activities;

• incorporates public participation to provide an opportunity for all conservation partners 

and Michigan residents to influence the future of resource management;

• provides guidance for use of State Wildlife Grant funds; and

• provides a clear process for review and revision as necessary to address changing 

conditions and to integrate new information as it becomes available. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives

Several migratory bird conservation plans have been published over the last decade that can be 

used to help guide management decisions for the refuges. Bird conservation planning efforts 

have evolved from a largely local, site-based orientation to a more regional, even intercontinental, landscape-oriented perspective. Several trans-national migratory bird conservation 

initiatives have emerged to help guide the planning and implementation process. The regional 

plans relevant to the Great Lakes islands refuges are:
Chapter 3: The Environment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

40

• The Upper Mississippi River/Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Implementation Plan of 

the North American Waterfowl Management Plan;

• The Partners in Flight Boreal Hardwood Transition [land] Bird Conservation Plan;

• The Upper Mississippi River/Great Lakes Region Shorebird Conservation Strategy; and

• The Upper Mississippi River/Great Lakes Region Waterbird Conservation Strategy.

All four conservation plans will be integrated under the umbrella of the North American Bird 

Conservation Initiative. Each of the bird conservation initiatives has a process for designating 

priority species, modeled to a large extent on the Partners in Flight method of computing scores 

based on independent assessments of global relative abundance, breeding and wintering 

distribution, vulnerability to threats, area importance, and population trend. These scores are 

often used by agencies to develop lists of priority bird species. The Service based its 2008 list of 

Birds of Conservation Concern primarily on the Partners in Flight, Landbird Conservation Plan, 

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, and North American Waterbird Conservation Plan status 

assessment scores.

Habitat Management

Managing Invasive Plants

No inventories of invasive plants were conducted on the Great Lakes islands refuges. However, 

island ecosystems are extremely vulnerable to harm caused by natural or intentional 

introduction of non-native plants. It is likely, but not documented, that some of the wetland areas 

are infested with purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) and that spotted knapweed (Centaurea 

maculosa) may be found locally in the open lands of the larger islands.

Conflict Species Management

Double-Crested Cormorants (DCCO)

DCCO status: The most recent Great Lakes Colonial Waterbird Census estimate (Cuthbert and 

Wires, 2011) for Cormorants during 2007–2009 was approximately 103,000 pairs in the Great 

Lakes. Of these, about 54,000 pairs were recorded in U.S. waters. Populations have increased 

significantly in the last 25 years, and growing concern about their impacts on natural resources, 

especially fish and vegetation, caused the Service to establish a Public Resource Depredation 

Order (PRDO) in 2003.

The PRDO authorizes 3 entities—the U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services (WS), 

state wildlife agencies, and tribes (acting on tribal lands)—to kill DCCOs, oil their eggs, and 

destroy their nests in 24 states when they significantly impact fish, vegetation, or other birds. 

Landowner permission is needed, and there are reporting requirements.

Under the PRDO, the Service has responsibilities to ensure that: 1) the other agencies comply 

with the provisions of the PRDO (especially relative to documenting impacts on natural 

resources), 2) the long-term sustainability of regional DCCO populations is not affected by 

management activities, and 3) DCCO management does not negatively impact other birds or 

federally listed species that co-occur with DCCOs. Depredation permits may be issued by the 

Service’s Migratory Bird Program for DCCO management to alleviate conflicts related to 
Chapter 3: The Environment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

41

economic impacts to private property and to address human health and safety concerns. 

However, the PRDO is the primary regulatory tool that is relevant to DCCO management on 

refuge lands.

When DCCO management is proposed for national wildlife refuges, the Service also has to 

assess whether it’s an appropriate use and then grant permission if other action agencies 

handle the management.

Environmental Assessments (EAs) were conducted where significant DCCO take has been 

proposed. In the Midwest Region, which includes Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio;

WS is the lead agency on the EAs, and the Service and sometimes the DNRs and tribes are 

cooperating agencies. The EAs:

• Review DCCO population status.

• Establish the need for action by reviewing conflicts and evidence of DCCO impacts.

• Develop alternatives within the PRDO framework. All of the EAs have selected as their 

preferred alternative Integrated Wildlife Damage Management, which allows for a 

combination of non-lethal and lethal activities, including harassment, nest destruction, 

egg oiling, and shooting of adults, as appropriate.

• Establish state-level Interagency Cormorant Coordination Groups.

Cormorant Management in Michigan

Michigan DCCO numbers rose from about 4,100 pairs in 1980–1991 to 30,500 pairs in 1997–

1999. The numbers declined slightly to 29,300 pairs in 2007–2009 (Cuthbert and Wires, 2011). 

As of the last decadal census, 39 DCCO colonies were active in the Michigan portions of Lakes

Huron, Michigan, and Superior; and the St. Marys River.

A 2006 EA established an allowable 

take of up to 10,500 DCCOs annually in 

Michigan, which would be ~14 percent

of the state's breeding population. In 

2008, WS and four tribes in Michigan 

killed ~8,300 DCCOs and oiled eggs in 

~16,000 nests, mostly to reduce 

documented or perceived impacts on 

fish populations. About two-thirds of the 

DCCO colonies in Michigan are subject 

to some sort of control activities. 

Michigan accounts for about 40 percent

of the birds killed and 50 percent of the 

eggs oiled in the U.S. under the PRDO, 

so it’s an important state for DCCO 

management.

Refuge islands where DCCO management has occurred or has been proposed include:

• Seney NWR, part of the Michigan Islands NWR (Beaver Archipelago, Lake Michigan): 

Cormorant Nest, Hat Island, Michigan Islands NWR
Chapter 3: The Environment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

42

o Gull Island: 2,821 nests in 2007; 449 nests in 2011; management is permitted on the 

entire island, a formally off-limits Caspian Tern colony site was abandoned after a 

storm.

o Pismire Island: 660 nests in 2007; 142 nests in 2011.

o Hat Island: 7,942 nests in 2007; 2,608 nests in 2011; access to the island for egg 

oiling or shooting birds is not allowed due to the presence of one of the largest 

Caspian Tern colonies in the northern Great Lakes. However, Wildlife Services does 

shoot birds on nearby open water. Hat Island has a large DCCO population.

• Shiawassee NWR, part of the Michigan Islands NWR (Lake Huron):

o Scarecrow Island (Thunder Bay): Egg oiling and shooting are not allowed on this 

island, because the evidence does not warrant control, and there is concern about 

co-nester impacts. DCCOs abandoned Scarecrow Island in recent years. WS shoots 

DCCOs offshore in Thunder Bay (1,300 birds in 2008).

Cormorant Management in Wisconsin

DCCOs were state-listed as endangered in Wisconsin in 1972, primarily due to the use of DDT. 

Numbers increased to ~10,000 pairs by 1997 and are currently at ~15,000 pairs. Approximately 

80 percent of the breeding birds in the state are in the Lower Green Bay and Door County 

areas.

The EA on DCCO management in Wisconsin was completed in 2009 and established an 

allowable take of up to 6,600 DCCOs annually in Wisconsin, which would be ~18 percent of the 

state's breeding population. In Green Bay, the goal is to ultimately reduce the breeding 

population from 13,000 to 6,000 pairs, mostly through egg oiling. The Service is not convinced 

that fish impacts can be strongly linked to DCCOs there, plus it has other objectives for the 

refuge islands.

In 2011, WS in Wisconsin killed 3,197 cormorants and oiled eggs in 8,588 nests, mostly to 

reduce documented or perceived impacts on fish populations. 

Refuge islands where DCCO management has occurred or has been proposed include:

• Gravel Island NWR: 

o Spider Island: 4,055 nests in 2011. No management occurs on Spider Island. At the 

time the EA was written, refuge staff felt there was not sufficient justification for 

DCCO reduction at a refuge established specifically to protect breeding birds. 

Additionally, DCCO reduction would disrupt an on-going DCCO banding and 

observation study started in 1988. The study is aimed at improving DCCO 

demographic data. The wilderness designation also requires additional consideration 

with regards to cormorant reduction activities and the requirement to protect 

wilderness character.

• Green Bay NWR:

o Pilot Island: 4,124 nest in 2011. This island is also off limits to management because, 

DCCO banding observation program has expanded there and the site serves as a 

"control" to better allow us to assess the effects of DCCO management.
Chapter 3: The Environment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

43

o Hog Island: 464 nest in 2011. DCCOs have nested at Hog Island in small numbers in 

the past, until recent years when increasing numbers have attempted to nest on the 

island. To protect the remaining vegetation and habitat for co-nesting species refuge 

staff began destroying nests and eggs in 2007 (working as agents of the DNR). 

Nests are initiated late in the season, suggesting these birds are possibly pushed 

there by egg oiling activities at nearby sites. Refuge staff will continue to monitor and 

manage to reduce and prevent adverse impacts of DCCO on vegetation and conesting species by carefully managing colonization.

o Plum Island: Currently vegetated, and the refuge staff wants to prevent DCCOs from 

nesting on the island. None have initiated nesting there to date.

Visitor Services

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 emphasizes wildlife 

management and that all prospective public uses on any given unit of the Refuge System must 

be compatible with the wildlife-related purposes before they can be allowed. The Improvement 

Act also identifies six priority uses of national wildlife refuges that in most cases a considered 

compatible uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation. Opportunities to participate in all of these wildlife-dependent 

activities exist on those islands open to the public.

Gravel Island and Green Bay NWRs

Gravel, Hog, Spider and Pilot Islands are all closed to public use to protect the nesting bird 

colonies and fragile habitats. Environmental education and interpretation activities may occur at 

a distance from the Islands (e.g., by boat around the perimeter of the Islands) or be offered 

offsite. 

Plum Island is currently closed to general public access except for specific, seasonal uses 

under refuge permit. Since 1982, the USCG allowed deer hunting on the island. When the 

Service retained ownership, hunting was allowed to continue, but by permit only. About 76 

people have hunted since 2007, harvesting 39 deer. It is critical to control the deer herd on the 

island in order to protect the forest diversity.

The Service is considering new wildlife-dependent activities for Plum Island. These proposed 

activities are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the CCP and in the Compatibility 

Determinations located in the Appendix B. 

Harbor Island NWR

The main harbor on the island is well protected and provides abundant opportunities for boats to 

anchor or beach on shore. There is a sandy beach on the north end of the island that is used by 

swimmers during the summer months. During winter this area of the lake is normally frozen, and 

access to the island is only via snow machine. Currently the refuge is not staffed. Based upon 

current documentation, the Service estimates that the refuge will receive about 200 visitors per 

year. At this time there are no self-guided interpretive services on the island, just informational 

and regulatory signs.
Chapter 3: The Environment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

44

Hunting is currently allowed for big game. The entire island is open to the hunting of white-tailed 

deer and black bear. These hunts are conducted in accordance with State of Michigan 

regulations.

Wild blueberries and morel mushrooms, when present, may be harvested throughout the spring, 

summer, and fall. Activity is normally concentrated during the few weeks that fruit is ripe. This 

activity most likely occurs on the refuge incidental to other activities.

Huron NWR

The Huron NWR, with the exception of the lighthouse and associated structures/features, is 

designated a Federal Wilderness Area. This designation was part of Public Law 91-504 passed 

October 23, 1970. Current regulations include the following:

• Only West Huron Island (Lighthouse Island) is open to the public—and only during 

daylight hours, for hiking and nature study.

• All remaining islands are closed to the public, except by Special Use Permit to biologists, 

botanists, or other qualified persons in conjunction with approved studies. Exceptions 

are emergency landings by boats in distress.

• Camping is prohibited on all islands, except that biologists, botanists, and other qualified 

applicants may be permitted prescribed primitive-type camping only on West Huron 

Island (Lighthouse Island) by Special Use Permit, in conjunction with approved studies.

Michigan Islands NWR (Seney)

Shoe, Pismire, Gull and Hat Islands are closed to the public to protect colonial nesting birds. 

Exceptions are emergency landings by boats in distress. Special Use Permits may be issued for 

approved purposes. Wildlife observation and photography are welcome offshore.

Michigan Islands NWR (Shiawassee)

Scarecrow, Thunder Bay, Sugar, Big Charity, and Little Charity Islands are currently closed to 

the public; no public uses have been permitted. There is little public demand to access Little 

Charity, Scarecrow, Thunder Bay, and Sugar Islands. Most of the demand is from local 

residents and vacationers that are curious to explore the island and its shores during the 

summer. Occasionally anglers beach on the shoreline and waterfowlers hunt from the islands.

All of these islands are surrounded by treacherous waters. These waters are shallow and 

littered with large boulders and shallow reefs. Consequently, the islands are only accessible to 

boaters that are very experienced with the underwater terrain and have small vessels. 

Navigating these waters is not safe for the inexperienced boater.

Archaeological and Cultural Resources Management

Cooperative maintenance and restoration of lighthouses and other maritime buildings is the only 

cultural resources management that occurs on the Great Lakes islands refuges. In general, 

cultural resources management in the Service is the responsibility of the Regional Director and 

is not delegated to field managers for the Section 106 process when historic properties could be 
Chapter 3: The Environment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

45

affected by Service actions, for issuing archeological permits, and for Indian tribal involvement. 

The Regional Historic Preservation Officer advises the Regional Director about procedures, 

compliance, and implementation of cultural resources laws. The field manager assists by 

informing the Regional Historic Preservation Officer about Service actions, by protecting 

archeological sites and historic properties, by monitoring archeological investigations by 

contractors and permittees, and by reporting violations.

Law Enforcement

Staff of the Great Lakes islands refuges is dedicated to safeguarding the resources under their 

jurisdiction including natural resources, cultural resources, and facilities. Resource management 

includes both protective and preventive functions. Protection is safeguarding the visiting public, 

staff, facilities, and natural and cultural resources from criminal action, accidents, negligence,

and acts of nature such as wildfires. Preventing incidents from occurring is the best form of 

protection and requires a known and visible law enforcement presence as well as other 

proactive steps to address potential threats and natural hazards.

Over the years, the most common violations on the Great Lakes islands refuges have been 

vandalism and trespass. Vandalism incidents have included damage to buildings, signs, and 

other structures.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction; Tomorrow’s Vision

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

46

Chapter 4: Future Management Direction; Tomorrow’s 

Vision

In this chapter:

Great Lakes Islands Refuges Vision, Goals, Objectives and Strategies

Vision Statement for the Great Lakes Islands Refuges

Goals for Great Lakes Islands Refuges

Objectives and Strategies for Great Lakes Islands Refuges

Throughout this document, five national wildlife refuges (NWRs, refuges) are discussed 

individually—such as the Gravel Island NWR or the Green Bay NWR. This document also 

discusses all five NWRs collectively as one entity and when doing so, refers to the group as the 

“Great Lakes islands refuges” or “Great Lakes islands NWRs.”

Great Lakes Islands Refuges Vision, Goals, Objectives and 

Strategies

The planning team developed goals and objectives for three broad management alternatives 

that will apply to all of the Great Lakes islands refuges. These alternatives include:

• Alternative A: Current Direction to Maintain Natural Integrity

• Alternative B: Minimal Management to Preserve Wilderness Qualities

• Alternative C: Enhanced Management to Promote Natural Integrity and Public 

Stewardship

The Environmental Assessment (EA) (Appendix A) describes and evaluates each alternative. 

Alternative C is the preferred alternative, and it forms the basis for the Great Lakes islands 

refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). The goals, objectives, and strategies are 

presented on the following pages. The planning team established goals for major management 

areas, objectives for achieving those goals, and the specific strategies that will be employed by 

the refuges’ staff. The goals are organized into the broad categories of ecosystem, wildlife, 

habitat, people, and cultural.

Vision Statement for Great Lakes Islands Refuges

Management of Great Lakes islands refuges will reflect the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (NWRS, Refuge System) by conserving in perpetuity a rich mosaic of island 

habitats and enabling nesting and migrating birds and other wildlife of conservation concern in 

the Great Lakes to thrive here. The refuge islands will serve as a resilient source of evolving 

habitats and ecosystem processes even as structure and composition are altered due to climate 

change. With the help of our conservation partners, we will apply sound, scientific principles 

based on research, studies, and adaptive management strategies to:

• sustain the long-term health and integrity of Great Lakes habitats;
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction; Tomorrow’s Vision

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

47

• expand community outreach and environmental education and interpretation programs; 

and,

• motivate visitors to embrace stewardship of natural resources.

Goals for Great Lakes Islands Refuges

The following goals were developed after consideration of refuge purposes, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS, Service) and Refuge System missions, the refuge vision statement, and 

the mandates, plans, and conservation initiatives described above. They are intentionally broad, 

descriptive statements of purpose. The goals highlight elements of our vision statement that 

emphasize future refuge management.

Ecosystem Goal

Protect and maintain natural ecological communities to promote a healthy functioning 

ecosystem and identify future scenarios for Great Lakes islands ecosystems

Wildlife Goal

Protect, restore and maintain a natural diversity of fish and wildlife native to the Great Lakes, 

with an emphasis on Service Resource Conservation Priority Species. 

Habitat Goal

Perpetuate the biological diversity and integrity of native plant communities to sustain high 

quality habitat for migratory birds, fish, and endangered species. 

People Goal

Communicate and work in partnership with communities, governments, and appropriate 

organizations throughout the Great Lakes watershed to understand and appreciate the island 

ecosystems of the Great Lakes and further the mission of the Refuge System. Protect the 

cultural resources and cultural history of the refuges to assure historical preservation and 

connect refuge staff, visitors, and the community to the area’s past.

Objectives and Strategies for Great Lakes Islands Refuges

The following management objectives and strategies are divided into two sections. The first 

section deals with issues and management approaches that are common to all refuge islands. 

The second section describes specific actions, or strategies, that will be applied to individual 

islands.

Objectives and Strategies Common to All Island Refuges

Ecosystem Goal

Ecosystem Objectives 1: Climate Change
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction; Tomorrow’s Vision

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

48

Within five years of CCP approval, identify potential impacts of the projected climate changes on 

both abiotic and biotic components of the Great Lakes island ecosystem and communicate 

these issues to the public.

Discussion and Rationale

Managing at the proper scale is fundamental to the accomplishment of conservation objectives. 

Managing natural resources and landscapes is becoming increasingly complex. Land use 

changes and impacts such as drought, wildfire, contaminants, invasive species, disease, and a 

rapidly changing climate can threaten native species and their habitats. The impacts of climate 

change are already evident in warmer water, longer ice-free season, earlier spring runoff, 

changing water levels and resulting habitat alterations and impacts to water quality and 

ecological processes. Species range 

shift, species extinction, phenological 

changes, and community restructuring 

are the major climate change issues 

affecting the Great Lakes Region. 

Secretarial Order 3226 requires that 

climate change impacts be considered 

and analyzed when planning or 

decision making. 

Making people more aware of how the 

accelerating climate change is 

harming fish and wildlife and how it 

reduces the flow of societal goods and 

affects ecosystem services is a 

challenge for the Service, our state 

and tribal counterparts, and the 

conservation community at large. The same ecosystem functions that provide for sustainable 

fish and wildlife populations also provide communities with significant benefits, such as good 

water quality, flood and fire protection, and recreation. Meeting the challenge will require that 

the Service and its partners use every available communication tool to engage the public about 

the ecological, economic, social, and cultural costs exacted by climate change.

Strategies

1. Refuge staff, as appropriate, will work directly with the Upper Midwest and Great Lakes 

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives to implement resource assessments, climate 

model applications to appropriate scale, vulnerability assessments, inventory and 

monitoring protocols, and conservation plans and designs.

2. Participate in climate change discussions with our local, national, and international 

partners in the public and private sectors.

3. Actively seek knowledge from state, federal, tribal, and local government agencies; nongovernmental organizations; business and industry already engaged in addressing 

climate change; and individual citizens.

4. Continue working and developing new collaborative island management efforts with 

other agencies, state and local governments, and non-governmental organizations to 

Restoration Supporters, Plum Island, Green Bay NWR (Photo by Tim 

Sweet)
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction; Tomorrow’s Vision

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

49

increase our understanding of global climate change impacts and use our combined 

expertise and creativity to help wildlife resources adapt in a climate-changed world.

Ecosystem Objective 2: Island Acquisition

Through the life of the plan, protect highly threatened Great Lakes island habitat that is either 

underrepresented and unique; or critical for threatened and endangered species, focal colonial 

waterbird species, or birds of conservation concern for Region 3 of the Service. 

Discussion and Rationale

It is important to consider the islands of the Great Lakes as a single, irreplaceable resource. The 

value of the whole collection of islands is much greater than the islands’ individual resources. 

Great Lakes islands form a landscape unique in the world and support remarkable diversity. 

With their relative isolation, they offer opportunities to protect the unique biological legacy of 

Great Lake islands. Acquiring additional islands will add to local island biodiversity and protect 

important island habitat in the Great Lakes Basin. 

Strategies

1. Implement the Land Protection Plan (Appendix C) by adding up to 14,133 acres of 

important island habitats.

2. Continue seeking out funding sources for acquisition and working with conservation 

partners to implement the plan in the Great Lakes Basin.

3. Develop partnerships for acquisition of lighthouses and associated structures so the 

Service does not have to take on restoration and/or preservation of these structures.

4. Update the priority islands periodically as wildlife, threats, and habitat conditions change 

over time.

Wildlife Goal

Wildlife Objective 1: Inventory and Monitoring

Within five years of CCP approval, implement a monitoring program to track the presence, 

abundance, population trends, and/or habitat associations of select resources including but not 

limited to Region 3 Conservation Priority Species, habitats, communities and ecosystems (e.g., 

Great Lake islands’ habitat). Resources to be monitored are identified under the island’s specific 

objectives or in forthcoming step-down plans. As the need arises, implement research to answer 

questions that have been raised regarding the management of resources and other issues.

Discussion and Rationale

These islands are valuable patches of habitat for a variety of migratory birds during both the 

migration and the breeding season. In particular, colonial waterbirds make use of them as 

loafing and breeding sites. The location of these islands, near forage fish habitat combined with 

their relatively undisturbed condition during spring and early summer, offer these species of 

migratory birds the necessary protected habitat. Habitat for colonial waterbirds has been under 

intense pressure on some refuge islands as shoreline development continues.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction; Tomorrow’s Vision

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

50

Strategies

1. Work with Region 3 Biological Monitoring Team (BMT) staff to develop a monitoring plan 

that will improve biological inventory and monitoring tools for the refuge islands, and set 

up a framework of adaptive management.

2. Conduct periodic reviews of the monitoring plan to assess trends of refuge resources,

and determine if there are any priorities for research or monitoring.

3. If a research issue has been identified, initiate research at the station level. If the issue 

goes beyond the boundary of the refuge, take the lead role in contacting other federal, 

state, university, and other organizations; and develop a broader scale research project 

to address those issues.

4. Continue colonial waterbird nest counts, and assist Regional staff with census efforts to 

assess population abundance, distribution, and trends for species with conservation 

management or stewardship priority. Surveys will use aerial survey methodology when 

possible. The use of aerial photos decreases disturbance typically associated with 

ground counts.

Wildlife Objective 2: Applied Research

During the life of the CCP, promote applied research aimed at answering wildlife-, habitat-, 

community-, and ecosystem-based questions without compromising wildlife, visitor, and 

wilderness values.

Discussion and Rationale

The islands have served as research sites for the Service and colleagues for many years. 

These studies contribute valuable information about contaminants and their impacts to 

waterbirds and natural resources. Currently, research projects are being conducted at some 

islands that will assist in directing future planning and management for wildlife species, their 

habitats, and associated communities and ecosystems. These islands offer rare opportunities to 

study the changes that are occurring on the landscape with minimal human intrusion. There are 

very few such natural sites available to study and document long-term changes in the absence 

of human disturbance.

Strategies

1. Monitor and assess research annually including access for researchers and the location, 

duration, and impacts of research.

2. Continue and promote applied research, and initiate dialogue with federal and state 

agencies, universities, and other organizations to answer management questions.

3. Seek external research funding through partnerships with others outside of the Service, 

where and when possible.

4. Communicate research findings with the broader conservation community through peerreview and other publications, lectures, and other outreach activities.

5. Inform visitors of research findings and explain their importance for planning and 

management on refuge islands.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction; Tomorrow’s Vision

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

51

6. Prioritize research on priority species, habitats, communities, and ecosystems of 

conservation priority.

7. Develop a better understanding as to how refuge ecosystems function on a landscape 

and regional scale, including the effects of future climate change.

Wildlife Objective 3: Protect Waterbird Colonies

During the life of the CCP, limit disturbance to colonial waterbird colonies in order to maintain 

current nesting population levels of gull, tern, egret, and heron species.

Discussion and Rationale

Colonial waterbirds are extremely sensitive to human disturbance. Disturbance during the prenesting and nest-building phase can cause the birds to abandon the island for the current and 

future nesting seasons. During the incubation and chick-rearing phase, disturbance may cause 

loss of eggs and chicks. When incubating adults are induced to leave the nest, eggs and chicks 

are vulnerable to predation from gulls and other opportunistic predators (consuming eggs and 

chicks whole) and heat stress, which can kill eggs and chicks in a matter of minutes on a hot 

day.

Strategies

1. Improve and maintain boundary signs. Using buoy markers will alert boaters and 

kayakers and assure boaters maintain an appropriate distance to avoid disturbance to 

nesting birds.

2. Continue law enforcement patrols.

3. Monitor applied research activities to ensure activities are conducted with minimal 

disturbance to nesting birds.

4. Build support for protecting waterbird colonies through public outreach, education, and 

promoting waterbird conservation opportunities.

People Goal

People Objective 1: Community Outreach

Within five years of CCP approval, 50 percent of neighboring communities and businesses will 

express support for the refuge through active promotion of island habitat protection and refuge 

special events.

Discussion and Rationale

Outreach is a two-way communication between the Service and the public to establish and 

promote involvement and influence attitudes and actions—with the goal of improving joint 

stewardship of our natural resources. Outreach includes congressional relations, news media 

relations, community relations, and public informational activities such as speeches and open 

houses.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction; Tomorrow’s Vision

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

52

Island habitats can be fragile, and wildlife species can be sensitive to disturbance by humans. In 

light of this fact, refuge managers have to determine whether existing and future opportunities 

for wildlife observation and photography, hunting, fishing, environmental education and 

interpretation are appropriate and sustainable on specific islands.

Strategies

1. Maintain websites with current information about refuge management and events.

2. Work closely with Friends Groups (where applicable) to maintain and increase important 

connections with the local communities.

3. Develop outreach plans for important resource issues.

4. Increase community partnerships.

5. Establish dedicated staff for island refuges. In 2007, the region conducted a staffing 

model exercise, which indicated the need for up to three staff positions dedicated to the 

islands. This level of staffing probably can’t be supported without a large increase in 

refuge budgets. However, a staff member at Seney and Horicon NWRs, with a 

significant portion of their work dedicated to the islands would greatly assist in 

implementing this plan. See Chapter 5 for more details.

People Objective 2: Cultural Resource Protection

Within five years of CCP approval, develop strategies to protect specific, known cultural and 

historic sites on the island refuges.

Discussion and Rationale

Several Great Lakes islands refuges 

contain unique, and often highly 

visible, historic sites. Refuge 

managers need to ensure these sites, 

especially the lighthouses, receive 

adequate care, restoration, and 

protection into the future.

Cultural resources are both physical 

manifestations and intangible values 

that connect us to our past, providing 

the means to study and reflect upon 

the events and processes that have 

shaped our nation, our communities 

and ourselves. Many of these 

resources are unique and 

irreplaceable. Their true value rests in what they offer us in terms of scientific information, 

interpretive opportunities, and cultural identity. Cultural resources managed by the Service are 

important, because the study of managed cultural resources provides important information on 

changes to our environment and landscapes over thousands of years, and this contributes 

directly to the Service's primary mission of managing wildlife and natural landscapes. 

Thunder Bay Lighthouse, Michigan Islands NWR
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction; Tomorrow’s Vision

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

53

We take seriously our responsibility to consider the effects of our actions on archeological and 

historic resources. This dedication is underscored by our compliance with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act before disturbing any ground. Compliance may require any or 

all of the following: review of State Historic Preservation Office records, consultation with Native 

American Tribal Historic Preservation offices, a literature survey, or field survey.

The National Historic Preservation Act considers deterioration of historic structures as an 

adverse effect upon them. All historic structures owned by the Service are managed by nonprofit organizations through cooperative agreements. All of these structures were in various 

states of repair when acquired by the Service. Most of these structures have received repairs 

since acquisition, but all require further repairs to place them in stable condition. Establishment 

of a regular program of cyclical maintenance, involving items such as painting and roofing 

repairs, will also be essential to protect these historic structures.

In addition, we will continue our program to maintain historic lighthouses and/or associated 

structures to at least minimum national historic preservation standards. The Service is not 

directly responsible for maintaining any historic structures on the existing refuge islands. 

However, several lighthouses and related structures are maintained under cooperative 

agreements with private non-profit organizations.

As noted under Ecosystem Objective 2 (Island Acquisition), we will acquire additional refuge 

lands. However, we are not purposefully seeking to acquire any more historic structures except 

as necessary to protect refuge biological resources.

Strategies

1. Conduct site-specific surveys prior to ground-disturbing projects, and protect known 

archeological, cultural, and historic sites.

2. Within 10 years of CCP approval and with the assistance of the Regional Historic 

Preservation Officer (RHPO), develop a step-down plan for surveying lands to identify 

archeological resources and for developing a preservation program to meet the 

requirements of Section 14 of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act and Section 

110(a)(2) of the National Historic Preservation Act.

3. Identify and nominate to the National Register of Historic Places all historic properties 

including those of religious and cultural significance to Indian tribes.

4. Inform the RHPO early in project planning to ensure compliance with Section 106 of 

National Historic Preservation Act.

5. Ensure archeological and cultural values are described, identified, and taken into 

consideration prior to implementing undertakings.

6. Inspect the condition of known cultural resources on the refuge, and report to the RHPO 

changes in the conditions.

7. Integrate historic preservation with planning and management of other resources and 

activities.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction; Tomorrow’s Vision

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

54

Objectives and Strategies Specific to Green Bay NWR (Plum and Pilot 

Islands)

Wildlife Goal

Wildlife Objective 1: Inventory and Monitoring

Within 5 years of CCP approval, implement a monitoring program to track the presence, 

abundance, population trends, and/or habitat associations of select resources, including but not 

limited to Region 3 Conservation Priority Species, habitats, communities, and ecosystems. 

Priority species that are currently found on Plum Island include (but are not limited to), the Bald 

Eagle, Black-billed Cuckoo, Red-headed Woodpecker, Northern Flicker, and Black-throated 

Blue Warbler. Valued resources also include the unique island community types found on Plum 

Island. Examples include the limestone pavement lakeshore communities and boreal habitat 

that supports the federally threatened dwarf lake iris that is endemic to the Great lakes Region.

As the need arises, implement research to answer questions that are raised regarding the 

management of these resources.

Discussion and Rationale

From a biodiversity perspective, Great Lakes islands are of particular importance and support 

relatively high numbers of endemic plant and animal species and distinct plant communities, 

and they serve as refugia to migrating and breeding birds. The islands are highly vulnerable and 

without a monitoring program; challenges such as over browsing by deer and invasive species 

threaten important island habitat. 

Strategies

1. Work with Region 3 Biological Monitoring Team (BMT) staff to develop a monitoring plan 

that will improve biological inventory and monitoring tools for the refuge islands, and set 

up a framework of adaptive management. For example, implement a landbird inventory 

protocol to monitor spring and fall migratory birds use on Plum Island.

2. Continue colonial bird nest counts on Pilot Island and assist Regional staff with census 

efforts to assess population abundance, distribution, and trends for species with 

conservation management or stewardship priority.

3. Re-visit permanent vegetation plots set up on Plum Island to monitor habitat changes,

and assess effectiveness of active management and/or restoration efforts.

4. Continue to develop collaborative efforts with other agencies, state, and local 

governments, and other organizations. Given the shortage of resources and the cost 

associated with islands work, these partnerships will be necessary to achieve adequate 

island management and monitoring goals.

Wildlife Objective 2: Deer Population

Annually, maintain the Plum Island deer population consistent with State Management Unit 81 

at a density of 10–19 deer per square mile based on annual winter surveys. A more liberal bag 

limit on Plum Island may be necessary to achieve wildlife goals and enhance the restoration and 

protection of native vegetation. 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction; Tomorrow’s Vision

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

55

Discussion and Rationale

Based on studies and long-term experience with deer herd management by Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources (DNR), this is the optimal population density or carrying 

capacity of white-tailed deer on island habitat in this region. 

Historically, few if any deer were present on Plum Island. At present, the deer herd on Plum 

Island is over state population goals and estimated to be between 15 and 20 per square mile. 

An over-abundant deer population can alter the structure, composition, and diversity of the 

forest community. Sustained browsing pressure can limit regeneration of favored and 

susceptible woody plants and eliminate populations of herbaceous plants. The forest habitat on 

Plum Island is exhibiting signs of an overabundant deer population. This is evident by the 

browse line and the current structure and composition of the forest habitat. 

Strategies

1. Annual deer hunts will be necessary to prevent an overabundance of deer on the island. 

Depending on the level of hunter interest and potential for crowding, the refuge may 

institute a permit system to assure a safe and quality hunter experience.

2. Annually, monitor for signs of habitat damage such as browse lines on the refuge that 

would indicate that carrying capacity has been surpassed. A deer exclosure could also 

be established to assist with these monitoring efforts.

3. Interact with hunters, and listen to feedback on ways to improve the hunt.

4. Due to the challenges for hunters to access Plum Island during state regulated deer 

hunting seasons, it may be necessary to reduce over-abundant deer populations by 

other means. Refuge staff may consider the use of sharpshooters to reduce deer 

populations and protect native vegetation if the hunting program is not successful at 

achieving wildlife management goals and objectives. Harvested deer would be donated 

to local food pantries.

Wildlife Objective 3: Conflict Species

Strategies in Addition to Those Common to all Island Refuges

1. Participate in the Interagency Cormorant Coordination Group to gather information, 

discuss, and coordinate annual cormorant census, management, and research efforts in 

Wisconsin.

2. Prevent Double-crested Cormorant colony expansion on Plum Island. No cormorants 

have been observed nesting on the island. If cormorants attempt to nest on Plum Island,

refuge staff will use an integrated management approach, as described in Environmental 

Assessment: Reducing Double-Crested Cormorant Damage in Wisconsin, to prevent the 

establishment of a new colony.

3. Assess Double-crested Cormorant populations annually on Pilot Island. At the present 

time, there is insufficient justification for cormorant population reduction at Pilot Island. 

The island was acquired primarily to protect breeding bird habitat. Initiating control 

measures now would disrupt the ongoing island cormorant research projects. However, 

if future data warrants reduction of cormorant numbers for the protection of historic 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction; Tomorrow’s Vision

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

56

property, fish populations, or co-nesting species, refuge management could 

implement/permit Double-crested Cormorant control activities, so long as the impacts do 

not exceed those analyzed in Environmental Assessment: Reducing Double-Crested 

Cormorant Damage in Wisconsin. 

Habitat Goal

Habitat Objective 1: Northern Mesic Forest

Annually, maintain 227 acres on Plum Island for a diversity of successional stages, and (where 

and when possible) restore historic composition and structure for the diversity of species 

present, including Region 3 Conservation Priority Species Bald Eagle, Black-throated Blue 

Warbler, and Northern Flicker. 

Discussion and Rationale

This habitat type contains a wide range of forest conditions, from those composed primarily of 

early successional species such as aspen and to forest dominated by sugar maple, basswood, 

and eastern hemlock. The interior of Plum Island is dominated by a sugar maple and basswood 

forest. Visits to the island in the 1970s documented an old-growth sugar maple and basswood 

forest with a dense Canada yew understory and no deer.

The forest has since been altered by heavy selective and/or clear-cut logging activities and 

browsing by over-abundant deer. Thus, the forest composition has shifted to more early 

successional species with a relatively uniform age structure. This is different than historical 

conditions, which contain greater species and structural diversity. Future management and 

restoration efforts should focus on promoting ecological integrity of the forest by promoting 

compositional and structural diversity and (in most instances) moving succession forward.

Strategies

1. Promote a forest dominated by late successional stages of mixed forest. 

2. Use management techniques that mimic natural ecological disturbances (windthrow and 

native pathogens).

3. Use commercial and non-commercial mechanical treatments, where and when 

appropriate.

4. Ensure white-tailed deer populations do not negatively affect the habitat.

5. Manage invasive species aggressively.

6. Protect active Bald Eagle nests, and maintain high quality suitable habitat for nesting 

Bald Eagles on Plum Island.

Habitat Objective 2: Great Lakes Alkaline Rock Shore and Alvar

On Plum Island, annually protect and maintain 40 acres of coastal habitat for the diversity of 

species present including Regional Priority Species Sedge Wren and American Woodcock and 

the federally threatened dwarf lake iris.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction; Tomorrow’s Vision

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

57

Discussion and Rationale

Creviced, coastal, horizontal exposures of dolomite support a distinct plant community. They are 

influenced by wave action, ice push, and fluctuating levels of Lake Michigan. White cedar is the 

dominant shoreline tree, and common shrubs include red-osier dogwood and shrubby 

cinquefoil. Understory species include the federally threatened dwarf lake iris. 

On the northwestern coast of Plum Island is a sheltered wetland with shallow water and an 

accumulation of calcareous mud, gravel, and cobble. The meadows are dominated by sedges 

and bulrush. Southwest of the wetland on Plum Island is a 16-acre sedge meadow. The 

meadow is dominated by bluejoint and tussock sedge. The water levels in this wetland area are 

dictated by the fluctuating water levels of Lake Michigan. 

Strategies

1. Manage invasive species aggressively. Continue ongoing efforts to control invasive 

Phragmites australis. 

2. Continue to map and monitor the population of dwarf lake iris to assure the necessary 

protection from potential threats, including management activities.

Habitat Objective 3: Open Land

On Plum Island, reduce open land habitat from 2007 levels (36 acres) by 21 acres, and manage 

the remaining 15 acres to protect historical U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) structures.

Discussion and Rationale

This habitat type consists primarily of anthropogenic habitats created prior to the acquisition of 

Plum Island in 2007. Open areas occur on the island in the southern range light area and near

the USCG structures.

The areas near the USCG structure (approximately 10 acres) will be maintained as open areas, 

especially in the path of the range light, which will continue to function as an active aid to 

navigation. USCG Aids to Navigation will maintain the areas near the range lights. Note: After 

Service acquisition, the USCG crew cut down several large diameter cedar trees in the path of 

the range light. The downed cedar trees currently lie where they fell. To this date no efforts have 

been initiated by USCG staff to clean up/remove the downed trees. 

Many non-native grass species, such as Kentucky bluegrass and several brome species, 

characterize these areas. Fields other than near the USCG structures should be allowed to 

succeed to forest habitat or be actively managed to do so. 

Strategies

1. Maintain openness near historical USCG structures via mechanical methods (mowing).

2. Remove downed cedar trees (cut by USCG), and slash to reduce potentially hazardous 

fuel by mechanical means and/or prescribed fire operations (burn piles). 

3. Elsewhere, restore fields to upland deciduous forest stands either passively or through 

natural secondary succession.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction; Tomorrow’s Vision

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

58

4. Manage invasive species aggressively (see below).

Habitat Objective 4: Invasive Species Management

By 2015, reduce the area infested with target invasive plant species on Plum Island (e.g., 

phragmites, spotted knapweed, and hound’s tongue) by 50 percent from the documented 2011 

level, and eliminate new infestations of these and other highly invasive species as they occur.

Discussion and Rationale

Islands are especially vulnerable to invasive species. Exotic plants have been identified on Plum 

Island, with a few being invasive, and more invasive species are expected to arrive in the area 

in the future. For example, garlic mustard is currently not found on Plum Island, but there is a 

high potential for it to spread to this island. This invasive herb has the potential to take over and 

destroy the native herbaceous understory of the mesic forest habitat on Plum Island. The plant 

is now dominant at Peninsula State Park, and visitors to Peninsula Park would likely be visitors 

to Plum Island, inadvertently transporting the seeds from this invasive plant. 

Areas around the USCG structures, which were disturbed from the USCG’s hazardous waste 

clean-up activities are of particular concern. There areas are dominated by invasive spotted 

knapweed. Invasive exotic species occur in the wetland and shorelines (phragmites), in the 

open areas (spotted knapweed), and to some extent in the forested areas (spotted knapweed 

and hound’s tongue).

Management should strive to assess the threat these species have on native ecosystem/habitat 

structure and function, and for those species that constitute the greatest threats an active 

management and monitoring program should ensue.

Strategies

1. Prior to access on Plum and Pilot Islands, special attention should be focused on 

preventing the spread of invasive species. Steps such as placing signs to require and 

ensure shoes and all equipment are cleaned and free of seeds and soil will be 

implemented.

2. Document the locations and sizes of targeted populations. The access sites need urgent 

and frequent attention. 

3. Use chemical, mechanical, prescribed, and natural fire (where appropriate) as means to 

manage infestations in cases where biological control techniques have not been 

developed.

4. Monitor the infestations and effectiveness of management measures.

5. When available, use biological control as a preferred strategy.

People Goal

People Objective 1: Public Access

Provide access opportunities for the public to enjoy high quality wildlife-dependent recreation on 

Plum Island while protecting the natural and cultural resources of the island.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction; Tomorrow’s Vision

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

59

Discussion and Rationale

Plum Island will be managed primarily for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants through 

careful planning and regulation. Plum Island provides the public with unique opportunities for 

recreation, education, and interpretation. Providing these opportunities: hunting, wildlife 

observation and photography, environmental education, and environmental interpretation is 

consistent with the refuges’ purpose and the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. 

Specific activities must be compatible with the purpose of the Green Bay NWR. The islands are 

remote but still within access to visitors. Plum Island is near Washington Island, a favorite Door 

County tourist destination, and is located six miles from the mainland. 

Visitors to Plum Island will have the opportunity to observe and photograph wildlife from 

interpretive trails. People hiking along refuge trails will cause some disturbance to wildlife, such 

as resting birds that may flush and move to other areas and birds sitting on nests that may 

temporarily leave. Overall, if visitors remain on the trails, as proposed, disturbance is limited to a 

small portion of the entire island. 

Prior to opening the island up to public access, it is critical to have the proper infrastructure 

(trails, regulatory signs, and sanitary facilities) in place to protect the sensitive nature of the 

islands. Extra precautions will be needed to protect the location of the federally threatened 

dwarf lake iris population and active Bald Eagle nests. For example, eagle nests that are 

located near trails will prompt trail closings until the young are fledged, which is typically after 

the July 4th holiday. 

The existing dock at Plum Island is in acceptable condition for staff and volunteers. Recent 

efforts to improve the condition and safety of the dock were accomplished through cooperation

between refuge staff and the Friends of Plum and Pilot Islands (FOPPI). A more formal 

assessment of the current condition and evaluation of safety concerns may be required prior to 

opening the island to public access. 

Chapter 5 of this document lists a proposal to complete a Visitor Services Plan to evaluate 

interpretive opportunities and provide a necessary tool to guide the development of future visitor 

services on the island. This work could be completed through a contract with a local university. 

The study would provide staff with information on the impacts of activities and may lead to 

adjustments in specific strategies.

Strategies

1. Establish interpretive hiking trails on Plum Island to accommodate wildlife observation, 

photography, and cultural resource site interpretation annually from Memorial Day to 

Labor Day, during daylight hours only. The old patrol road that follows the perimeter of 

the island and the existing trail between the lifesaving station and lighthouse would make 

ideal trail locations. Both of the locations have already been disturbed by past USCG

activities, eliminating the need to disturb pristine habitat. Actual trail location will be 

determined through a site analysis and more detailed Visitor Services Plan.

2. Install a restroom facility, requiring minimal maintenance, near the access point/dock 

area. 

3. Develop and install regulatory signage.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction; Tomorrow’s Vision

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

60

4. Visitors will be allowed to access Plum Island via private watercraft including 

motorboats, sailboats, kayaks, and canoes. Due to the fragile nature of plant 

communities, docking boats at undesignated beach areas will not be permitted. Boats 

will be required to moor at designated areas at the dock. A launch/landing area 

designated for kayaks and canoes will also be designated near the dock. There will be 

no fees to access Plum Island.

5. Commercial, public, and private companies and organizations offering charter boat 

service to Plum Island and/or guided wildlife tours and activities, will be allowed 

authorized access under the terms of a Commercial Use Authorization or Special Use 

Permit pending the completion of a Visitor Services Plan. Activities may include the 

following: kayak tours, bird watching excursions, wildlife viewing or photography trips, 

nature programs, and environmental education field outings 

6. Continue participating in conversations regarding the Lake Michigan Water Trail

(LMWT), and support efforts to include Plum Island as a day-use only public access site 

(no camping). Wisconsin’s LMWT will consist of a series of paddler access and camping 

sites and related user information along the 523-mile shoreline. Wisconsin’s LMWT will 

provide access to both visitors and the nearly two million residents within a 30-minute 

drive of the shoreline as well as form a keystone in the water trail circumnavigating Lake 

Michigan. The trail will promote stewardship, wildlife appreciation, ecotourism, physical 

activity, and a sense of place.

People Objective 2: Environmental Education and Interpretation

Within five years of CCP approval, 50 percent of visitors will be able to explain a key 

environmental theme for the refuge. The themes may include island ecology, human impact on 

fragile ecosystems, wilderness status, value for migratory birds, and climate change impacts.

Discussion and Rationale

Environmental education is a process 

designed to teach citizens and visitors 

the history and importance of 

conservations and the biological and 

scientific knowledge of our Nation’s 

natural resources. Through this 

process, we can help develop a 

citizenry that has the awareness, 

knowledge, attitudes, skills, 

motivation, and commitment to work 

cooperatively towards the 

conservation of our Nation’s 

environmental resources. 

Environmental education includes 

both onsite and offsite programming 

and distance education via computer. 

It also pertains to activities such as 

formal curriculums about the refuge environment, Junior Duck Stamp programs, and Scout 

badge projects. Interpretation is a communication process that forges emotional and intellectual 

connections between the audience and the resource.

Guided Bird Watchers, Plum Island, Greed Bay NWR (Photo by Tim 

Sweet)
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction; Tomorrow’s Vision

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

61

A limited amount of onsite environmental education occurs now on Plum Island. The refuge 

currently does not have a staff person to promote and conduct environmental education and 

interpretation. Green Bay NWR is in the position to provide more environmental education than 

it does now to grade-level and college students in northeastern Wisconsin.

Refuge staff will strive to provide educational opportunities that highlight the objectives of this 

plan, so the public will understand future management activities and provide support. For 

example, a person who understands invasive species control on islands will be more likely to 

support refuge decisions.

Strategies

1. Support special events and programs on Plum Island that interpret the refuge, its habitat, 

wildlife, and wildlife management. Examples include, The Door County Bird Festival, 

Migratory Bird Day, National Public Lands Day, and National Trail Day

2. Develop and place interpretive signs for planned hiking trails on Plum Island. Interpretive 

signs could include information about other island refuges in the area that will remain 

closed to visitors: Pilot, Hog, Gravel, and Spider Islands; and cultural resource 

information, including archeological, lighthouse, and shipwreck information.

3. Develop and install a kiosk to place near the Plum Island access point/dock that will 

allow visitors to view refuge maps and regulations and help interpret habitat, wildlife, and 

wildlife management. 

4. Hire a full-time Visitor Service Specialist (see Chapter 5). 

5. Develop refuge brochures and bird lists.

6. Evaluate during the development of the Visitor Service Plan, the use of the former 

USCG buildings on Plum Island—such as the boathouse and/or lifesaving station—as a 

visitor contact station. Space could be provided for refuge staff and volunteers, 

interpretive exhibit, dioramas of local wildlife, an information desk, restrooms, 

multipurpose room, and a small interpretive bookstore. The partnership with FOPPI, 

other local conservation groups, and other local state and federal conservation agencies 

could allow this visitor contact station to serve as an information station for people 

interested in Great Lakes islands ecology.

7. Maintain websites with current information about refuge management and events.

8. Work with local teachers to develop grade-specific curricula that meet local, state, and 

national educational standards and that emphasize the importance of island habitat, 

ecosystem processes, and wildlife management.

9. If feasible, train volunteers to provide tours for onsite environmental education and 

cultural resource programs on Plum Island or offsite environmental education programs 

and lessons for classrooms.

10. Devise and encourage additional opportunities for research, such as wildlife surveys 

within the ability of high school science or biology classes.

11. Encourage partnerships with local schools, community groups, and surrounding 

agencies

12. Train educators to conduct their own programs via teacher workshops.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction; Tomorrow’s Vision

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

62

People Objective 3: Community Outreach

Within five years of CCP approval, increase awareness of refuge management and issues 

concerning management within surrounding areas by annually providing opportunities for at 

least 100 students to participate in programs, 10 teachers to participate in training programs, 

and 100 people to be members of a supporting volunteer Friends Group.

Discussion and Rationale

Outreach is a two-way communication between the Service and the public to establish and 

promote involvement and influence attitudes and actions—with the goal of improving joint 

stewardship of our natural resources. Outreach includes congressional relations, news media 

relations, community relations, and public informational activities such as speeches and open 

houses.

It is critical to the mission of the refuge that the neighbors and citizens of the surrounding 

landscape know about the refuge and support it as a valuable and contributing part of the 

community.

Strategies

1. Work closely with the FOPPI to foster understanding and mutual priorities.

2. Support an active volunteer program, and work with the FOPPI to recruit and train 

volunteers for assistance in refuge programs.

3. Offer training programs to teachers and local naturalist facilities that focus on the 

refuge’s place in the ecological landscape, the importance of habitat management, and 

the objectives of this plan. 

4. Increase community partnerships.

5. Participate in offsite community events.

6. Maintain websites with current information about refuge management and events. 

People Objective 4: Protection of Cultural Resources

Within five years of CCP approval, initiate a Cultural Resources Management Plan that 

incorporates all existing surveys and investigations, identifies future needs, and guides 

permanent protection measures for historic structures on Plum and Pilot Islands. 

Discussion and Rationale

Most buildings and structures on Plum and Pilot Islands are listed on the National Register of 

Historic Places. The Pilot Island lighthouse was added to the Register in 1983 and the entire 

Plum Island district, which includes all buildings and structures of substantial size and scale, 

was added to the Register in 2010. Additionally, numerous shipwrecks have occurred in the 

area, and the remains of some can be found off the coasts of Plum and Pilot Islands.

The structures on Plum and Pilot Islands were in various conditions when acquired by the 

Service. Refuge staff is committed to assuring the historical structures receive adequate care, 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction; Tomorrow’s Vision

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

63

restoration, and protection into the future. Realizing that minimal funding will be available for 

these efforts, it is critical to establish and maintain existing partnerships and future partnership 

efforts. 

FOPPI formed shortly after the acquisition of Plum and Pilot Islands. A Service Memorandum of 

Understanding was put in place to formalize the cooperation of the Service and the Friends. 

Together, the Service and Friends support the preservation, restoration, and maintenance of the 

lighthouses, accessory buildings, and other historic resources on Plum and Pilot Islands as well 

as conserve and protect wildlife resources, while providing opportunities for quality wildlifedependent recreation on Plum Island. The Friends have been an invaluable asset, securing 

funding to complete stabilization plans for the building and implementing the most urgent repairs 

necessary to protect the historical structures on both Plum and Pilot Islands. 

Strategies

1. Continue existing partnership with FOPPI. FOPPI will continue to work toward 

developing political and public support for maintenance of these historical structures and 

developing interpretation and educational programs related to the history of lighthouses 

and associated structures on Plum and Pilot Islands.

2. Continue to consult closely with the Wisconsin State Historical Society and FOPPI

regarding repairs and annual and cyclical maintenance for the three National Register 

listed buildings on the refuges.

3. Complete an inventory of maintenance needs necessary to bring each building to 

national and state preservation standards; incorporate needs into a database system. 

Seek alternative funding sources and pursue additional partnerships to accomplish 

priority work.

4. Develop a step-down plan for surveying lands to identify archeological resources and for 

developing a preservation program. The intent of this statement is to meet the 

requirements of Section 14 of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act and Section 

110(a)(2) of the National Historic Preservation Act.

5. Continue efforts with FOPPI to develop an oral cultural history to preserve the 

“community memories” and maritime history of Plum and Pilot Islands. 

6. Explore the idea of utilizing the historical structures as historic/cultural museums if/when 

the structures are stabilized and restored to acceptable conditions.

People Objective 5: Cultural Resource Appreciation

Within five years of CCP approval, 50 percent of visitors to the islands will understand and 

appreciate the cultural history of the Green Bay NWR—especially the history of the lighthouses 

and USCG lifesaving station.

Discussion and Rationale

Our understanding of a national landscape is enhanced by knowing its human history as well as 

its natural history. People develop connections with the land based on the land itself, 

experiences they have on the land or at a memorable location, or even buildings on the land. 

Those connections motivate citizens to help preserve and protect what they care about. An 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction; Tomorrow’s Vision

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

64

effective cultural resource appreciation program that increases understanding of history by 

visitors to Plum Island will increase their connection to the land.

Strategies

1. Incorporate cultural history messages into programs, tours, exhibits, and other media 

with an emphasis on use of the refuge landscape throughout time.

2. Incorporate cultural resource interpretation into trail development. Develop signs on 

interpretive trails that help tell the unique maritime history of the local area.

3. Continue FOPPI partnership efforts to provide information through outreach and 

education, which builds on a sense of connection to the land and guides people toward 

being better stewards of the cultural resources and land conservation in general.

Objectives and Strategies Specific to Harbor Island NWR

People Goal

People Objective 1: Community Outreach

Within five years of CCP approval, 50 percent of the neighboring communities and businesses

will express support for the refuge through active promotion of island habitat protection and 

refuge special events.

Strategies in Addition to Those Common to all Island Refuges

1. Support newly-formed refuge Friends Groups. The new Harbor Island National Wildlife 

Preservation Society (HINWRPS) would establish a productive and cooperative 

relationship between the refuge and area residents.

2. Work with Friends Group to pursue additional sources of potential funding to support the 

refuge.

3. Estimate visitation numbers and develop a Visitor Use Plan. Harbor Island NWR is part 

of a large complex of islands that are close together. Several of the islands are privatelyowned and include year round or seasonal residents. Drummond Island supports a large 

year round population. Harbor Island currently gets quite a bit of visitation.

4. Work with the HINWRPS to make Harbor Island more accessible to visitors. The mission 

of HINRPWS is " . . . to support and promote Harbor Island NWR and the NWRS in their 

efforts to conserve habitat and wildlife." 

5. The HINWRPS has proposed to fund and maintain a trail loop on the island. A suitable 

location will be selected for a trail to interpret the island habitats and concentrate or keep 

most use away from nesting eagles and some historical sites on the refuge.

6. Place small signs at beach access points and along the route of the primitive trail loop. 

HINWRPS will provide and place benches along the route.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction; Tomorrow’s Vision

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

65

Objectives and Strategies Specific to Gravel Island NWR (and Spider 

and Hog Island of Green Bay NWR)

The planning team grouped these islands together for the purpose of defining objectives based 

on the islands having similar biological and physical diversity and geographic location. 

Wildlife Goal

Wildlife Objective 1: Inventory and Monitoring 

Within five years of CCP approval, 

implement a monitoring program to 

track the presence, abundance, 

population trends, and/or habitat 

associations of select biological 

resources including but not limited to 

Region 3 Conservation Priority 

Species, colonial waterbirds, habitats, 

communities, and ecosystems (e.g., 

Great Lake Island habitat). As the 

need arises, implement research to 

answer questions regarding the 

management of these resources.

Discussion and Rationale

These islands are invaluable patches of habitat for a variety of migratory birds both during the 

migration and during the breeding season. In particular, colonial waterbirds make use of the 

islands as loafing and breeding sites. The location of these islands, near forage fish habitat,

combined with their relatively undisturbed condition during spring and early summer, offer these 

species of migratory birds the necessary protected habitat. Habitat for colonial waterbirds has 

been under intense pressure in Door County as shoreline development continues.

Strategies

1. Work with Region 3 Biological Monitoring Team (BMT) staff to develop a monitoring plan 

that will improve biological inventory and monitoring tools for the refuge islands, and set 

up a framework of adaptive management.

2. Conduct periodic reviews of the monitoring plan to assess trends of refuge resources 

and determine if there are any priorities for research or monitoring.

3. If a research issue has been identified, initiate research at the station level. If the issue 

goes beyond the boundary of the refuge, take a lead role in contacting other federal, 

state, university, and other organizations; and develop a broader scale research project 

to address those issues.

4. Continue colonial waterbird nest counts on the wilderness islands, and assist Regional 

staff with census efforts to assess population abundance, distribution, and trends for 

species with conservation management or stewardship priority. Surveys will utilize aerial 

survey methodology when possible. The use of aerial photos decreases disturbance 

typically associated with ground counts.

Hog Island, Wisconsin Islands Wilderness Area, Green Bay NWR
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction; Tomorrow’s Vision

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

66

Wildlife Objective 2: Research

Promote applied research aimed at answering wildlife-, habitat-, community-, and ecosystembased questions without compromising wildlife, visitor, and wilderness values.

Discussion and Rationale

The islands have served as research sites for the Service for more than 35 years. These studies 

contribute valuable information about contaminants and their impacts to waterbirds and natural 

resources. Currently, research projects are being conducted at the refuge that will assist in 

directing future planning and management for wildlife species, their habitats, and associated 

communities, and ecosystems. These islands offer rare opportunities to study the changes that 

are occurring on the landscape with minimal human intrusion. There are very few such natural 

sites available to study and document long-term changes in the absence of human disturbance.

Strategies

1. Monitor and assess research annually including access for researchers and the location, 

duration, and impacts of research.

2. Continue and promote applied research, and initiate dialogue with federal and state 

agencies, universities, and other organizations to answer management questions.

3. Seek external research funding through partnerships with others outside of the Service, 

where and when possible.

4. Communicate research findings with the broader conservation community through peerreview and other publications, lectures, and other outreach activities.

5. Inform visitors of research findings, and explain their importance for planning and 

management on refuge islands.

6. Prioritize research on species, habitats, communities, and ecosystems of conservation 

priority.

7. Develop a better understanding as to how refuge ecosystems function on a landscape 

and regional scale, including the effects of future climate change.

Wildlife Objective 3: Protect Waterbird Colonies

During the life of the CCP, limit disturbance to colonial nesting waterbird colonies to maintain 

the productivity of the Ring-billed Gull, Herring Gull, Black-crowned Night Heron, Common Tern, 

Caspian Tern, Great Blue Heron, and Great Egret.

Discussion and Rationale

Colonial nesting waterbirds are extremely sensitive to human disturbance. Disturbance during 

the pre-nesting and nest-building phase can cause the birds to abandon the island for the 

current and future nesting seasons. During the incubation and chick-rearing phase, disturbance 

may cause loss of eggs and chicks. When incubating adults are induced to leave the nest, eggs 

and chicks are vulnerable to predation from gulls and other opportunistic predators (consuming 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction; Tomorrow’s Vision

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

67

eggs and chicks whole) and heat stress, which can kill eggs and chicks in a matter of minutes 

on a hot day.

Strategies

1. Improve and maintain boundary signs. Using buoy markers will alert boaters and 

kayakers and assure boaters maintain an appropriate distance to avoid disturbance to 

nesting birds.

2. Continue law enforcement patrols.

3. Monitor research activities to ensure activities are conducted with minimal disturbance to 

nesting birds.

4. Build support for protecting waterbird colonies through public outreach, education, and 

promoting waterbird conservation opportunities.

Habitat Goal

Habitat Objective 1: Waterbird Habitat

Maintain and provide nesting habitat favorable to colonial nesting waterbirds and other 

waterbirds (such as waterfowl), including Region 3 Conservation Priority Bird Species—Black 

crowned Night-Heron, Common Tern, and Double-crested Cormorant—without compromising 

the wilderness integrity. 

Discussion and Rationale

Great Lakes islands provide essential habitat for colonial nesting waterbirds. These islands 

support nesting colonies of Ring-billed Gull, Herring Gull, Black-crowned Night Heron, Common 

Tern, Caspian Tern, Double-crested Cormorant, Great Blue Heron, and Great Egret. The 

islands offer protected habitat that has been eliminated from most other places in the immediate 

vicinity. 

Strategies

1. Monitor the bird populations and nesting success annually during the nesting season 

(April–July).

2. Assess Double-crested Cormorant populations annually and protect remaining habitat 

for other tree and shrub-nesting waterbirds on Hog Island by implementing Doublecrested Cormorant control methods when deemed biologically necessary and when staff 

availability and funding will allow and as described in Environmental Assessment: 

Reducing Double-crested Cormorant Damage in Wisconsin. 

Habitat Objective 2: Exotic and Invasive Species Control

By 2020, inventory all refuge land for invasive species, target control efforts on species that 

threaten habitat, and eliminate new infestations of these and other highly invasive species as 

they occur.

Discussion and Rationale
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction; Tomorrow’s Vision

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

68

The Mute Swan is a non-native species and its population continues to grow at a rapid rate near 

refuge islands. Mute Swans compete for resources with native waterfowl such as ducks, 

colonial waterbirds, Tundra Swans, and geese and will sometimes completely displace, or even 

kill, native waterfowl. Due to the tendency of Mute Swans to concentrate in large numbers at 

productive feeding areas, there is concern that they will deplete aquatic plants needed by native 

waterfowl. In flocks, Mute Swans can overgraze submerged vegetation to the point that the

vegetation cannot fully recover. This causes a reduction in the quantity and quality of aquatic 

habitat that may affect the food web, impact resident and migratory waterfowl, and affect an 

area’s biodiversity. Ground nesting waterfowl including Mallards, Red-breasted Mergansers, 

and Black Ducks use the dense brush areas on refuge islands for nesting. Additionally, 

migrating waterfowl feed in the shallow areas adjacent to refuge islands. Controlling Mute 

Swans will protect native waterfowl nesting habitat and protect aquatic habitat diversity for 

migrating waterfowl. 

The colonial nesting bird population on Hog, Spider, and Gravel Islands dictate vegetative 

conditions on these islands. The arboreal vegetation has been destroyed by the urea of nesting 

colonial waterbirds, such as Herring Gulls and Double-crested Cormorants. The understory of 

these islands currently consists of native and exotic herbs such as catnip, nettles, motherwort, 

and thistles. These species do not pose a serious threat to the habitat. Efforts to 

control/eradicate invasive plant species in the presence of nesting colonial waterbirds would be 

difficult due to the rapidly changing conditions brought on by the nesting activities of thousands 

of nesting birds. However, it is still important to monitor and prevent new infestation of 

aggressive exotic invasive species that could pose a threat in the future. 

Strategies

1. Continue partnership efforts to work with U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife 

Services and Wisconsin DNR to control and reduce invasive Mute Swan populations 

near refuge islands.

2. Destroy nests and eggs of nesting Mute Swans during routine monitoring efforts. 

3. Prior to accessing islands for monitoring or research activities take proper precautions to 

assure shoes and all equipment are clean and free of seeds or soil before boarding a 

boat. 

4. Document the locations and sizes of targeted exotic invasive plant populations. 

5. When available, use biological control methods as a preferred strategy.

6. Use chemical and mechanical methods and prescribed fire (when appropriate) as means 

to manage infestations in cases where biological control techniques have not been 

developed.

7. Monitor the infestations and effectiveness of management measures.

People Goal

People Objective 1: Protect Wilderness Character

Protect wilderness character by maintaining natural qualities of the island through limited human 

presence and disturbance
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction; Tomorrow’s Vision

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

69

Discussion and Rationale

Green Bay NWR (Hog Island) and Gravel Island NWR (Spider and Gravel Islands) were 

designated as a Federal wilderness area in 1970 primarily because of the islands’ importance 

as nesting grounds for colonial waterbirds. The islands are small and provide resting and 

feeding habitat for migratory birds. The islands are managed to minimize human disturbance to 

the nesting birds and will remain closed to the public. The isolated location of the refuge islands 

along with difficult and often hazardous access have dictated limited management potential. 

Limiting human presence, as in the past, will continue to preserve the wilderness character.

Strategies

1. Continue periodic law enforcement visits. Evidence of closure violations will increase 

frequency and timing of visits.

2. Update the 1981 Wilderness Management Plan.

People Objective 2: Environmental Education and Interpretation

Within five years of CCP approval, all off-refuge outreach contacts will understand, appreciate,

and support the Gravel Island NWR, the wilderness status, and the need to preserve the islands 

for colonial nesting birds.

Discussion and Rationale

Environmental education is a process designed to teach citizens and visitors the history and 

importance of conservations and the biological and scientific knowledge of our Nation’s natural 

resources. Through this process, we can help develop a citizenry that has the awareness, 

knowledge, attitudes, skills, motivation, and commitment to work cooperatively towards the 

conservation of our Nation’s environmental resources. Environmental education includes both 

onsite and offsite programming and distance education via computer. It also pertains to 

activities such as formal curriculums about the refuge environment, Junior Duck Stamp 

programs, and Scout badge projects. Interpretation is a communication process that forges 

emotional and intellectual connections between the audience and the resource.

Because the islands are undisturbed, they provide unique opportunities to reach out to the 

public with an environmental message. There is a unique opportunity to educate visitors about 

islands with no human disturbance, in contrast to islands with a history of human occupation.

Strategies

1. Develop brochures and information sheets for distribution to off-refuge contacts. 

2. Partner with FOPPI to develop displays at the newly established visitor center at 

Northport, near the Washington Island Ferry dock. 

3. Develop informational signs and kiosks for use at area boat landings. These signs would 

also serve to inform boaters and kayakers and alert them to maintain an appropriate 

distance to avoid disturbance to colonial nesting waterbirds.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction; Tomorrow’s Vision

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

70

4. In all off-refuge presentations, include information about the Green Bay and Gravel 

Island NWRs, their wilderness status, and the need to prevent disturbance to breeding 

colonies.

People Objective 3: Community Outreach

Increase awareness of refuge by increasing community outreach efforts in the local community

Discussion and Rationale

Outreach is a two-way communication between the Service and the public to establish and 

promote involvement and influence attitudes and actions—with the goal of improving joint 

stewardship of our natural resources. Outreach includes congressional relations, news media 

relations, community relations, and public informational activities such as speeches and open 

houses.

It is critical to the mission of the refuge that the neighbors and citizens of the surrounding 

landscape know about the refuge and support it as a valuable and contributing part of the 

community.

Strategies

1. Participate in offsite community events.

2. Increase community partnerships and volunteer base.

3. Offer training programs for teachers and local naturalists on the refuge’s place in the 

ecological landscape and the objectives in this plan.

4. Develop outreach plans for important issues, such as Double-crested Cormorant 

management and research programs.

5. Improve outreach to refuge neighbors.

6. Maintain websites with current information about refuge management and events.

Objectives and Strategies Specific to Huron NWR

People Goal

People Objective 1: Welcome and Orient Visitors

Within five years of CCP approval, staff will develop and employ an inventory technique to 

better understand Island visitation numbers.

Discussion and Rationale

In order to better understand the impact on island resources and the impact interpretation may 

have on those resources, baseline information on the number of visitors using the refuge is 

necessary.

Strategies
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction; Tomorrow’s Vision

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

71

1. Working with staff from the Service’s Fort Collins Inventory and Monitoring group and 

with the Regional Visitor Services Staff, develop an inventory technique and database to 

determine and record baseline visitation information for Huron NWR.

People Objective 2: Interpretation/Outreach

Within the life of this plan, interpretation and/or outreach about Huron NWR will have increased 

by 50 percent and 100 percent respectively compared to 2012 effort levels. 

Discussion and Rationale

Interpretation is a process designed to help visitors form an emotional and intellectual 

connection between them and the natural resources. It also helps explain complex scientific 

processes and natural history in a way the layman may understand. Through this process we 

can help develop a citizenry that has the awareness, knowledge, attitude, skills, motivation, and 

commitment to work towards the conservation of our Nation’s natural resources. Interpretation 

may include both onsite and offsite resources (i.e., signs, kiosk, website, presentations). 

Refuge staff will strive to provide interpretation opportunities that highlight the objectives of this 

plan, so the public will understand future management activities and support the efforts. 

Outreach is a two-way communication between the Service and the public to establish and 

promote involvement and influence attitudes and actions with the goal of improving joint 

stewardship of our natural resources. Outreach includes congressional relations, new media 

relations, community relations, and public informational activities such as presentations and 

open houses.

Strategies

1. Develop a visitor use plan.

2. Develop interpretive materials (signs, kiosks, articles, presentations, etc.) to educate the 

public about Huron NWR (wilderness, lighthouse history, flora, fauna, etc.).

People Objective 3: Cultural Resource Protection

Within the life of this plan, island cultural heritage holdings will be assessed and then 

maintained as determined necessary.

Discussion and Rationale

The Huron Island lighthouse on Lighthouse Island, part of Huron NWR, was listed on the 

National Register of Historic places in 1976. The other structures, including the lighthouse 

keeper’s quarters, barracks, fog horn building, boathouse, and various other structures, are not 

listed on the Register. Structures on the island are in various conditions of repair. Refuge staff, 

in conjunction with the Huron Island Lighthouse Preservation Association (HILPA), is committed 

to assuring the historical structures receive adequate care.

Strategies
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction; Tomorrow’s Vision

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

72

1. Ensure archaeological and cultural resources are identified, described, and taken into 

consideration prior to implementing undertakings.

2. Determine need and ultimate disposition of refuge buildings—there are eight 

buildings/structures on Huron Island associated with the old USCG station. The exterior 

of the lighthouse, a National Historic Landmark, has been rehabbed and maintained 

through the efforts of the HILPA. The remaining buildings are in various stages of decay.

3. Coordinate with HILPA to preserve and maintain structure and historical integrity of 

lighthouse and associated structures selected for preservation.

4. Ensure all doors and windows on the lighthouse building, fog horn building, and barracks 

are either locked or covered with plywood to protect the interior of the buildings from 

weather damage, to prevent vandalism, for safety concerns, and to keep the general 

public from entering.

5. Cover all openings in the lighthouse keeper’s quarters by the end of fall 2013. Currently, 

the house is completely open (no windows or doors) to the elements and is slowly 

deteriorating.

6. Within one year of completion of this plan, cut down and remove all trees and shrubs 

growing against or over any of the buildings and structures to maintain the exterior 

condition of the buildings. 

7. Establish efforts with HIPLA and others to develop an oral cultural history to preserve the 

“community memories” and maritime history of the Huron Islands. 

Objectives and Strategies Specific to Michigan Islands NWR (Seney)

People Goal

People Objective 1: Community Outreach

Within five years of CCP approval, 50 percent of neighboring communities and businesses will 

express support for the refuge through active promotion of island habitat protection and refuge 

special events.

Strategy in Addition to Those Common to all Island Refuges

1. Reinvigorate cooperation with the USCG. Seney NWR has a long history of working with 

the USCG at Huron NWR and Hat and Gull Islands. The lighthouse at Huron NWR is still 

a functioning lighthouse, although automated. There are numerous opportunities with the 

USCG to strengthen and expand our cooperative relationship on all islands. See 

Chapter 5 for more details.

Wildlife Goal

Wildlife Objective 2: Applied Research

During the life of the CCP, promote applied research aimed at answering ecosystem-, wildlife-, 

habitat-, and community-based questions without compromising wildlife, visitor, and wilderness 

values.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction; Tomorrow’s Vision

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

73

Strategy in Addition to Those Common to all Island Refuges

1. Establish a formal Memorandum of Understanding with Central Michigan University 

(CMU). CMU runs a biological station on Beaver Island that is active during the summer 

months. The four Seney NWR-managed islands of the Michigan Islands NWR are all 

located fairly close to Beaver Island. A formal Memorandum of Understanding with CMU 

would promote biological and ecological studies and provide opportunities for students to 

learn about and conduct real science.

Objectives and Strategies Specific to Michigan Islands NWR 

(Shiawassee)

Ecosystem Goal

Ecosystem Objective 1: Preserve Great Lakes Alvar Communities on Thunder 

Bay and Sugar Islands

Throughout the life of the CCP, maintain and protect all alvar sites on Thunder Bay and Sugar 

Islands through proactive monitoring and aggressive control of non-indigenous invasive plants 

and animals.

Discussion and Rationale

The refuge has an opportunity to contribute to the conservation of this rare ecosystem, which 

supports several rare and declining species. One of the primary threats to alvar ecosystems is 

colonization and spread of nonindigenous invasive plants such as common buckthorn, common 

mullein, and St. Johnswort.

Strategies

1. Within five years of CCP completion, develop an Inventory and Monitoring Plan. 

Components of this plan would include surveys of flora and fauna with emphasis on 

characteristic and indicator alvar species, rare and declining species, and invasive 

species. It would also include mapping of boundaries of alvar sites and vegetative cover 

types, locations of resources of concern and invasive species within alvar sites, and the 

development of protocols to measure current and future alvar status and effectiveness of 

conservation strategies.

2. Within five years of CCP completion, develop a Habitat Management Plan. Components 

of this plan would include preservation of alvar sites and their component characteristic 

and indicator species, rare and declining species, and other resources of concern. 

Incorporate invasive species control as an important component of alvar conservation on 

the refuge.

Wildlife Goal

Wildlife Objective 1: Maintain and Provide Nesting Habitat
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction; Tomorrow’s Vision

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

74

Throughout the life of the CCP, maintain and provide nesting habitat on Little Charity and 

Scarecrow Islands favorable to colonial nesting waterbirds, including Region 3 Conservation 

Priority Species: Black-crowned Night-Heron and Common Tern.

Discussion and Rationale

Little Charity and Scarecrow Islands provide important habitat to several species of nesting 

colonial waterbirds including Double-crested Cormorant, Great Blue Heron, Great Egret, Blackcrowned Night-Heron, Ring-billed Gull, Herring Gull, Caspian Tern, and Common Tern. Blackcrowned Night-Heron is an Upper Mississippi River/Great Lakes Region Joint Venture 

(UMR/GLRJV) Focal Species and a state listed species of special concern. Caspian Tern is a 

state listed threatened species. Common Tern is a UMR/GLRJV Focal Species, Service Region 

3 Bird of Conservation Concern, and state listed threatened species. The Upper Mississippi 

River/Great Lakes Region Waterbird Conservation Strategy includes Little Charity and 

Scarecrow Islands on its list of the most important sites for breeding colonial waterbirds in the 

United States Great Lakes. The Waterbird Conservation Plan lists population inventory and 

monitoring, habitat protection and management, and management of human disturbance as 

priority conservation actions for waterbirds.

Strategies

1. Continue annual surveys of nesting colonial waterbird colonies at Little Charity and 

Scarecrow Islands. These surveys have been ongoing since 2002.

2. Within five years of CCP completion, develop an Inventory and Monitoring Plan. 

Components of the plan would include an assessment of nesting colonial waterbirds at 

Little Charity and Scarecrow Islands.

3. Within five years of CCP completion, develop a Habitat Management Plan. Components 

of the plan would include conservation of nesting waterbirds colonies at Little Charity 

and Scarecrow Islands through prevention of human disturbance, suppression of 

invasive non-indigenous species, and other practices.

Habitat Goal

Habitat Objective 1: Preserve Pitcher’s Thistle

Preserve Pitcher’s thistle on Big Charity Island and dwarf lake Iris on Thunder Bay and Sugar 

Islands.

Discussion and Rationale

Pitcher’s thistle is a state and federally listed threatened species, which occurs on Big Charity 

Island. The refuge has opportunities to implement actions listed in the Pitcher’s Thistle 

Recovery Plan and actions identified in the five-year review of the plan, toward delisting of this 

species. Dwarf lake iris is a state and federally listed threatened species, which occurs on 

Thunder Bay Island. This species may also occur on Sugar Island. A five-year review of the 

Dwarf Lake Iris Recovery Plan identifies specific recovery action and is located at 

http:/www.fws.gov/Midwest/endangered.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction; Tomorrow’s Vision

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

75

Strategies

1. Immediately employ practices to control of phragmites in and adjacent to Pitcher’s thistle 

habitat.

2. Within five years of CCP completion, develop an Inventory and Monitoring Plan for 

Pitcher’s thistle. Components of the plan would include an assessment of Pitcher’s 

thistle population on Big Charity Island, surveys to more precisely determine thistle 

population, mapping of thistle sites and non-indigenous invasive species, and

development of protocols to measure current and future Pitcher’s thistle status and 

effectiveness of conservation strategies.

3. Within five years of CCP completion, develop a Habitat Management Plan. Components 

of this plan would include preservation of Pitcher’s thistle and its habitat. Incorporate 

invasive species control as an important component of Pitcher’s thistle conservation on 

the refuge.

4. Within five years of CCP completion, develop an Inventory and Monitoring Plan for dwarf

lake iris. Components of this plan would include an assessment of dwarf lake iris 

population on Thunder Bay and Sugar Islands, surveys to more precisely determine iris 

population size, mapping of iris locations, and development of protocols to measure 

current and future dwarf lake iris status and effectiveness of conservation strategies.

Habitat Objective 2: Protect Sensitive Habitat by Reducing Invasive Plant Species

By 2020, protect sensitive colonial bird habitat by reducing the area infested with target invasive 

plant species on Scarecrow and Big Charity Islands (e.g., common buckthorn, phragmites, reed 

canarygrass) by 50 percent from the documented 2011 levels and eliminate new infestations of 

these and other highly invasive species as they occur.

Discussion and Rationale

Nonindigenous invasive species are a threat to specific resources of concern on several refuge 

islands. Alvar communities are being degraded by a suite of species such as common mullein, 

St. Johnswort, and Kentucky bluegrass. Phragmites threatens to overtake Pitcher’s thistle 

habitat at Big Charity Island.

Further, invasive species are a threat to the overall habitat quality of the islands. Extensive 

common buckthorn control has been undertaken to preserve nesting waterbird colonies 

adjacent to Scarecrow Island. Phragmites and reed canarygrass are displacing native wetland 

plants and covering cobble beach along the shoreline at Big Charity Island to the detriment of 

migrant waterfowl and shorebirds. The Mute Swan population in Saginaw Bay is burgeoning. 

This species is aggressive toward native waterbirds and waterfowl, and their feeding habits can 

severely damage wetland plant communities. These impacts have contributed to the State of 

Michigan’s program to substantially reduce its Mute Swan population.

Strategies

1. Within five years of CCP completion, develop an Inventory and Monitoring Plan. 

Components of the plan would include an assessment of nonindigenous invasive 

species on all refuge islands, protocols for the early detection of invasive species,
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction; Tomorrow’s Vision

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

76

mapping of sites occupied by invasive species, and protocols to measure current and 

future invasives status and effectiveness of conservation strategies.

2. Within five years of CCP completion, develop a Habitat Management Plan. Components 

of the plan would include provisions to reduce adverse impacts of invasive species—in 

particular common buckthorn, Phragmites, reed canarygrass, and mute swan. The plan 

would also incorporate practices to eradicate incipient invasions discovered through 

early detection processes.

People Goal

People Objective 1: Environmental Education

Within three years visitors to Big Charity Island will recognize that the majority of the island is 

part of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Discussion and Rationale

This will broaden knowledge and understanding of the refuge and help protect species and 

habitats on the island through development of an appreciation for these natural resources.

Strategies

1. Erect a one panel kiosk near the boat harbor where visitors to the private lighthouse will 

be able learn about the island’s biological values and role in the Refuge System.

2. Within two years, visitor use will be investigated near the end of the summer tourist 

season by looking for areas of worn paths, trampled vegetation, etc. If use is negatively 

impacting the habitat, a visitor use plan will be developed to address the issue.
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

77

Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

In this chapter:

New and Existing Projects

Current and Future Staffing Requirements

Step-Down Management Plans

Partnership Opportunities

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

Throughout this document, five national wildlife refuges (NWRs, refuges) are discussed 

individually—such as the Gravel Island NWR or the Green Bay NWR. This document also 

discusses all five NWRs collectively as one entity and when doing so, refers to the group as the 

“Great Lakes islands refuges” or “Great Lakes islands NWRs.”

New and Existing Projects

The Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) outlines an ambitious course of action for the future 

management of the Great Lakes islands refuges. All refuges that collectively make up the Great 

Lakes islands refuges will continually need appropriate operational and maintenance funding to 

implement the objectives in this plan.

The following provides a brief description of the highest priority refuge projects, as chosen by 

the refuge staff and listed in the Refuge Operating Needs System.

Great Lakes Islands Refuges Operating Needs Projects

Gravel Island and Green Bay NWRs

Enhance refuge management and administration via a Resource Specialist

Provide a Resource Specialist to conduct wildlife and habitat surveys, invasive species control, 

habitat management and restoration projects, and other needs such as updating and writing 

refuge plans. The refuge islands provide important habitat for migratory and breeding birds. The 

shoals and shallow waters of the islands provide spawning and nursery areas for many 

imperiled aquatic species of the Great Lakes. The unique coastal environment contains 

distinctive biota and the biological diversity is of global significance.

Estimated cost: $130,000

Develop a Visitor Services Plan for the refuge islands

Plum Island provides the public with a unique opportunity for outreach and interpretation if 

suitable infrastructure can be developed and maintained. The plan is an essential tool that will 

guide the development of a sustainable and successful visitor service program including 

interpretive themes and signs. The plan will also provide an essential tool for refuge 

management, allow for improved stakeholder discussions, and provide for increased funding 

opportunities.
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

78

Estimated cost: $20,000

Establish Plum Island interpretive trail and informational kiosks

This project will provide funding to design, construct, and maintain a self-guided interpretive trail 

on Plum Island. Kiosks, informational signs, and other items will be developed to provide 

information about Green Bay NWR, the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, Refuge 

System), Great Lakes Basin ecology, and cultural history of Plum and Pilot Islands. There are 

two unmaintained trails on Plum Island that were historically used by the U.S. Coast Guard

(USCG). The existing (but overgrown) perimeter trail will be cleared and developed into an 

interpretive trail. A section of the trail is currently home to the federally threatened dwarf lake 

iris. This section will need to be re-routed to assure necessary protection. The existing “crossisland” trail, which connects the lifesaving station on the north side of the island to the keeper’s 

quarters and rear range light on the south side of the island will need to be closed and/or rerouted to avoid disturbing an active Bald Eagle’s nest. The trails will allow for wildlife 

observation and environmental education opportunities on Plum Island.

Estimated cost: $15,000

Use solar and/or wind power to generate power to existing and new 

infrastructures on Plum Island

New facilities for future visitor services including restroom facilities and a well for drinking water 

will be required. The existing Plum Island boathouse and lifesaving station could also be 

powered by solar/and or a residential-sized wind turbine. The island provides an ideal location 

for receiving and generating solar and wind power.

Estimated cost: $300,000

Continue and increase efforts concerning invasive species control

For several years, money has been provided through the Natural Resource Damage

Assessment fund for a temporary employee who has implemented invasive species control 

measures and habitat restoration projects. However, the funding is depleted, and new 

populations are detected annually. Monitoring and control efforts must continue to protect and 

restore important island habitat including a unique coastal wetland complex threatened by 

invasives. This project would purchase equipment and supplies for this long-term effort. An 

efficient boat, motor, and trailer will be purchased. This boat will be large enough to provide 

safety to staff and volunteers working in the Great Lakes environment and have the capability of 

hauling and unloading supplies. Control of these invasive weeds is important since they cause 

degradation of nesting habitat and a decrease in overall plant and animal diversity.

Estimated cost: $200,000

Implement a Visitor Service Program on Plum Island

Hire a full-time Visitor Services Specialist with a major responsibility to cooperatively work with 

partners and volunteers to implement a Visitor Services Plan for Plum Island. Plum Island 

contains a number of historic buildings and related structures including the front and rear range 
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

79

lights, the original keeper’s quarters, a fog signal building, the USCG station and a substantial 

boathouse and dock. The rear range light, built in 1896, is still operational and listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places. There is also a concentration of shipwrecks, dating from 

the 1800s and early 1900s. A partnership between the US. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, 

Service) and the Friends of Plum and Pilot Islands (FOPPI), currently helps support the 

preservation, restoration, and maintenance of the lighthouse and other historic structures while 

also protecting wildlife resources. Plum Island provides an excellent opportunity to integrate 

history and local community traditions and values into refuge interpretive and education 

programs.

The project will leverage the resources provided by this partnership to provide wildlifedependent recreational opportunities on Plum Island. The full-time specialist would work with 

Friends Group to accomplish the following:

• Acquire grant money or other funding to implement the plan.

• Facilitate partnerships and increase efforts to aid in the management of cultural 

resources with federal and state agencies, the State Historic Preservation Office, 

professional archeologists, and the general public. 

• Work with FOPPI. to cooperatively preserve, restore, and maintain the lighthouse and 

other historic structures on Plum and Pilot Islands. The boathouse on Plum Island may 

be used as a visitor contact station and exhibit space to provide information about Green 

Bay NWR, the Refuge System, Great Lakes Basin ecology, and historic resources on 

Plum and Pilot Islands. Additionally, the USCG station may be used as a research 

station and bunkhouse for refuge staff, researchers, and volunteers. 

• Coordinate more than 100 Friends Group members and volunteers who provide 

assistance to the refuge on many different projects in all program areas. 

• Develop and implement quality opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation on Plum 

Island to cultivate an understanding and appreciation of refuges’ ecology and the human 

influence on the region’s ecosystem

• Develop and implement interpretive programs (such as Refuge Week, International 

Migratory Bird Day, etc.) for area schools, local communities, and refuge visitors.

A full-time Visitor Services Specialist would allow us to better meet one of the highest priorities 

for the Service, which is “Connecting People with Nature: Ensuring the Future of Conservation.”

Estimated cost: $130,000

Improve visitor services by providing refuge brochures

Develop brochures for Green Bay NWR. Many people request information on specific items 

such as certain types of wildlife that use the refuge and the maritime history. Brochures will be 

needed to inform the visiting public about Plum Island. This project would provide funding to 

develop and print refuge brochures, bird lists, hunting brochures, maps, and maritime history for 

visitors and volunteers.

Estimated cost: $7,000
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

80

Increase refuge awareness

Investigate the acquisition or lease of properties on the mainland and/or Washington Island to 

provide refuge informational kiosks and/or signs accessible to area visitors. Kiosks and/or signs 

will be located in proximity to major ferry and island-viewing tour boats and kayak access points. 

Door County is a major tourist destination during the summer. The majority of tourists and 

summer residents come from the metropolitan areas of Milwaukee, Chicago, Madison, and the 

Twin Cities or Minneapolis–St. Paul. Visitors come to visit the areas five state parks, explore the 

area lighthouses, and to recreate on Lake Michigan waters. Kiosks will provide an opportunity to 

better educate and inform the public about Gravel Island and Green Bay NWRs and the mission 

of the Refuge System and Service.

Estimated cost: $5,000

Reestablish safe access to Plum Island

Repair and/or replace the Plum Island dock and breakwater to allow for safe access. The 

current stability of the structure is unknown; therefore, conducting an assessment is high priority 

because of the safety concern. A professional structural engineer will be hired to conduct an 

inspection and assessment of the Plum Island dock and breakwater and to prepare a report,

which will include a summary of findings of existing conditions, options for repair/restoration,

and a cost estimate for the repair options. The dock piers also support the boathouse; so, 

preserving the dock will also contribute to the stability and preservation of the historic 

boathouse. Refuge staff and volunteers use the Plum Island dock on a regular basis during the 

field season. Allowing the deterioration of the dock to continue will lead to increased costs for 

repair and eventually prevent staff, volunteers, and potential future visitors from accessing the 

island.

Estimated cost:$500,000

Locate wilderness area boundaries

Investigate refuge and wilderness boundary designation to assure necessary protection of plant 

and wildlife communities, particularly the nesting colonies of waterbirds. The boundaries—as 

marked on the original Executive Order, which set aside the islands for preservation—are 

unclear. Fluctuating water levels complicate the issue. Restricting boating traffic during the 

crucial nesting period is important since disturbance can lead to unsuccessful nesting and 

cause colony abandonment. This project would allow for the installation of signs and/or buoys to 

protect nesting colonies, provide signs (regulatory and interpretive) at area public boat 

launching ramps, and print and distribute educational information through local marinas and 

other coastal businesses.

Estimated cost: $10,000

Improve habitat for native fish in coastal waters

The shoals surrounding the refuge are historic spawning beds for lake trout, herring, and other 

Great Lakes species. The island reefs and shorelines provide coastal habitat required by these 

species to complete their lifecycles. Implementing an aquatic habitat assessment is necessary 

to determine if future restoration projects are needed to enhance vital spawning and nursery 
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

81

habitat for native Lake Michigan fish species. These efforts will provide for the enhancement, 

abundance, and diversity of self-sustaining fish populations in the waters surrounding refuge 

lands.

Estimated cost: $75,000

Harbor Island NWR

Explore establishing a refuge Friends Group

The refuge has received strong interest from portions of the Drummond Island community to 

increase tourism in that area of Lake Huron, which includes Harbor Island NWR. Formation of a 

Friends Group will establish a productive and cooperative relationship between the refuge and 

area residents to make sure the increased development does not negatively affect Harbor 

Island NWR. Working with the Friends Group will open up additional sources of potential 

funding to support the refuge.

Estimated cost: $0 (included in current budget)

Determine accurate visitation numbers, and develop Visitor Use Plan

Harbor Island NWR is part of a large complex of islands that are close together. Several of the 

islands are privately owned and include year round or seasonal residents. Drummond Island 

supports a large year round population. 

Harbor Island currently gets quite a bit 

of visitation. The refuge estimates the 

island currently receives several

visitors, but this is only an estimate, and 

all indications show that use is 

increasing. Good hard data are needed 

to determine the actual number of 

visitors to Harbor Island. A Visitor Use 

Plan is necessary to determine the 

appropriate interpretive infrastructure 

needed, the appropriate level of 

recreational activities that the island 

can support, and to build the 

infrastructure to support that use.

Estimated cost: $35,000

Huron NWR

Determine need and ultimate disposition of refuge buildings

There are eight buildings/structures on Huron Island associated with the old USCG station. The 

exterior of the lighthouse, a National Historic Landmark, has been rehabbed and maintained 

through the efforts of the Huron Island Lighthouse Preservation Association. The dock was 

completely renovated in 2008. The fog signal building on the north end of the island is brick 

construction; the exterior of the building is in good shape. The lighthouse keeper’s quarters is 

Visitor Sign, Harbor Island NWR
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

82

wood construction, The exterior of the building is still in fair-to-good shape, but all windows and 

doors are missing leaving the structure open to the weather. If significant work is not done in the 

near future the building will likely deteriorate to the point of not being worth saving. The other 

four buildings are showing significant wear or have issues:

• The boathouse, a concrete structure, is showing extensive cracking in the walls, roof and 

foundation. People have to walk by it to access the island.

• The barracks on the north end of the island is wood construction. The roof has a large 

hole, which has been patched with plywood, but the shingles are badly deteriorated. The 

siding is showing significant wear.

• The comfort station is deteriorating and has no windows or doors in place.

• The hazardous storage building is showing signs of wear. 

There should be no question of keeping and maintaining the lighthouse and the dock, but 

retaining the other six buildings should be open for discussion. If any buildings are razed, it 

needs to be determined whether to leave the materials on the island or transport off island for 

disposal. In addition to the buildings, there are remnants of the old USCG station—such as a 

large tank, old metal poles, old cable, etc.—that need to be removed and disposed of.

Estimated cost: $150,000 (disposed cost)

Determine accurate visitation numbers, and develop Visitor Use Plan

Currently, the Service estimates that 

West Huron (or Lighthouse) Island—

the only island of the eight refuge 

islands that is open to the public—

receives one hundred visitors per year. 

This estimate is likely low. Good hard 

data are needed to determine the 

number of visitors to Huron NWR. We 

presume that a majority of the visitors 

are visiting the island because of the 

lighthouse and the old USCG station. 

We need to determine if this is correct 

or not. A Visitor Use Plan is necessary

to determine the appropriate 

interpretive infrastructure needed, the 

appropriate level of visitation that the 

island can support, and to build the infrastructure to support that use.

Estimated cost: $35,000

Harbor Island NWR/Huron NWR/Michigan Islands NWR

Establish dedicated staff for island refuges

West Huron (or Lighthouse) Island, Huron NWR
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

83

In 2007, the Midwest Region conducted a staffing model exercise, which indicated the need for 

three staff positions dedicated to the islands. This level of staffing probably can’t be supported 

without a large increase in refuge budgets. However, a staff member at both Seney and 

Shiawassee NWRs, with a significant portion of their work dedicated to the islands, would 

greatly assist in implementing this plan. A key responsibility would be the managerial functions 

such as developing partnerships, handling Special Use Permit requests, managing real 

property, insuring appropriate regulatory signage, and gathering and analyzing essential data 

for making sound management decisions. Another responsibility would be collecting essential 

flora and fauna data and conducting analysis to enable sound management decisions. Support 

is also needed for conducting environmental education activities in area schools, developing 

interpretive materials, identifying possibilities for public use/recreational infrastructure, leading

tours, and conducting programs.

Estimated cost: $120,000

Strengthen and expand cooperation with the USCG

Seney NWR has a long history of working with the USCG at Huron NWR and at Hat and Gull 

Islands at Michigan Islands NWR. It is very likely cooperation will continue, given the activities

that have or will take place on the islands. The lighthouse at Huron NWR is still a functioning 

lighthouse. Although, the lighthouse is automated, the USCG maintains a battery bank charged 

by solar panels to keep the light operating. The USCG visits the island at least quarterly to 

check on the light. Other activities that have taken place or are opportunities for future 

cooperation include the following:

• The Service worked with the USCG to remove barrels from Hat Island. 

• The USCG has a navigation aid on the north end of Gull Island, which will likely require 

inspection.

• Seney NWR annually cooperates with the USCG station at St. Ignace managing a 

Common Tern colony. 

There are many opportunities with the USCG to strengthen and expand our cooperative 

relationship.

Estimated cost: $0 (included in current budget)

Michigan Islands NWR (Seney)

Establish formal Memorandum of Understanding with Central Michigan University 

(CMU)

Establish a formal Memorandum of Understanding with CMU to promote biological and 

ecological studies on and around the refuge islands. Information collected from the studies 

would help the refuge staff more effectively manage the islands and their resources and would 

provide opportunities for students to learn about and conduct real science. CMU runs a 

biological station on Beaver Island that is active during the summer months, and some Seney 

NWR staff hold adjunct appointments at CMU. The four Seney NWR-managed islands of the 

Michigan Islands NWR are all located fairly close to Beaver Island. Three of the four islands are 

normally an easy boat ride from Beaver Island. The Michigan islands are located approximately 
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

84

three hours from the Seney NWR office. Access to the islands can be weather-dependent and 

includes one-to-two hours of traversing open water. Explore opportunities with CMU, such as:

• positioning refuge personnel at the Beaver Island station for short or extended periods;

• storing a refuge boat and/or vehicle at the station over the winter; and 

• dock the boat during the summer.

These and other opportunities to leverage support and resources with CMU should provide us 

better access to the islands help us more effectively manage the refuge.

Estimated cost: $5,000/year

Control nonindigenous invasive plants

Introduced invasive plants such as common reed, purple loosestrife, and reed canarygrass are 

a significant threat to the islands’ natural resources. These aggressive plants push out native 

species and degrade the quality of habitat for wildlife. Moreover, these aggressive species 

threaten populations of the federally listed (threatened) Pitcher’s thistle and (threatened) dwarf 

lake iris. This project is necessary to reduce or eliminate these invasives on islands where they 

presently occur and prevent their colonization elsewhere.

Estimated Cost: $50,000

Improve habitat for migratory bird species by controlling invasive Mute Swans

The Mute Swan population is growing rapidly near the islands. This non-native species 

competes aggressively for resources with native waterfowl and colonial waterbirds. In fact, 

these birds will sometimes completely displace, or even kill, native waterbirds. Further, Mute 

Swans concentrate in large numbers at productive feeding areas and overgraze submerged 

vegetation to the point that it cannot fully recover. This causes a reduction in the quality of 

wetland and aquatic habitat for waterbirds, fish, and other wildlife.

Estimated Cost: $20,000

Current and Future Staffing Requirements

None of the Great Lakes islands refuges have a permanent staff. The staff at Horicon, at Seney, 

and at Shiawassee NWRs oversee the islands and provide services on an as-needed basis. 

These duties include, but are not limited to, partnership coordination, Special Use Permit 

administration, and onsite law enforcement. Full-time oversight may be required at some units in 

the future if new islands are acquired or special programs are expanded. Strategies presented 

in chapter 4 envision a total of three positions dedicated to island refuge management: one 

Visitor Services Specialist and one Resource Specialist at Green Bay NWR; and one half- time 

Manager at Seney and Shiawassee each.
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

85

Step-Down Management Plans

Step-down management plans describe specific actions that support the accomplishment of 

refuge objectives. The refuges that are collectively known as the Great Lakes islands refuges do 

not require many step-down plans due to relatively small size of properties and the lack of staff 

and funding. The objectives and strategies outlined in this CCP will provide adequate detail for 

most of the programs at these refuges. However, strategies presented in chapter 4 call for a 

Visitor Services Plan for Green Bay NWR, Huron NWR, and Harbor Island NWR and a Habitat 

Management Plan for Michigan Islands NWR. In addition, a Biological Inventory and Monitoring 

Plan will be completed for each island refuge.

Partnership Opportunities

Partnerships have become an essential element for the successful accomplishment of Gravel 

Island and Green Bay NWRs’ goals, objectives, and strategies. The objectives outlined in this 

CCP need the support and the partnerships of federal, state, and local agencies; nongovernmental organizations, and individual citizens. This broad-based approach to managing 

fish and wildlife resources extends beyond social and political boundaries and requires a 

foundation of support from many. Gravel Island and Green Bay NWRs will continue to seek 

creative partnership opportunities to achieve its vision for the future.

The Friends of Plum and Pilot Island works to support the goals of the preservation, restoration, 

and maintenance of the lighthouses, accessory buildings, and other historic resources on Plum 

and Pilot Islands and to conserve and protect wildlife resources. This partnership enables 

refuge staff to improve on protection of historic properties and foster a visitor program through 

partnerships. Plum Island provides an excellent opportunity to integrate history and local 

community traditions and values into refuge interpretive and education programs.

Other particularly notable partners of the refuges include refuge volunteers and the Wisconsin 

and Michigan Departments of Natural Resources.

Wilderness Review

As part of the CCP process, the Service reviewed islands within the legislative boundaries of 

each refuge for wilderness suitability. No additional lands were found suitable for designation as 

wilderness as defined in the Wilderness Act of 1964. The islands not designated as wilderness 

do not contain 5,000 contiguous, roadless acres. Most islands acquired subsequent to the 

original Wilderness Act have been substantially affected by humans, particularly through 

lighthouse infrastructure.

Potential impacts to wilderness resources from offsite activities such as tour boat operations, 

commercial and recreational fishing, and recreational boating and other current levels of activity 

and facility developments diminish wilderness character of most islands.

Monitoring and Evaluation

The direction set forth in this CCP and specifically identified strategies and projects will be 

monitored throughout the life of this plan. On a periodic basis, the regional office will assemble a 

station review team whose purpose will be to visit the island refuges and evaluate current
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

86

activities in light of this plan. The team will review all aspects of management including direction, 

accomplishments, and funding. The goals and objectives presented in this CCP will provide the 

baseline from which each field station will be evaluated.

Plan Review and Revision

The CCP for the Great Lakes islands refuges is meant to provide guidance to refuge managers 

and staff over the next 15 years. However, the CCP is also a dynamic and flexible document 

and several of the strategies contained in this plan are subject to such things as drought, floods, 

windstorms, and other uncontrollable events. Likewise, many of the strategies are dependent 

upon Service funding for staff and projects. Because of all these factors, the recommendations 

in the CCP will be reviewed periodically and, if necessary, revised to meet new circumstances.
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

87

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

88
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

89

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPREHENSIVE 

CONSERVATION PLAN FOR GREAT LAKES ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES 

(GRAVEL ISLAND, GREEN BAY, HARBOR ISLAND, HURON, AND MICHIGAN ISLANDS)

In this appendix:

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

Chapter 2: Description of the Alternatives

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

Chapter 5: List of Preparers

Chapter 6: Consultation and Coordination with Stakeholders

Abstract: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service) is proposing to implement a 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for five Great Lakes island refuges located in Lake 

Huron, Lake Michigan, and Lake Superior. This Environmental Assessment (EA) considers the 

biological, environmental, and socioeconomic effects that implementing the CCP (which is the 

preferred alternative in this assessment), or an alternative, would have on the issues and 

concerns identified during the planning process. The purpose of the proposed action is to 

establish the management direction for the refuge for the next 15 years. The management 

action will be achieved by implementing a detailed set of goals, objectives, and strategies 

described in the CCP.

Responsible Agency and Official:

Tom Melius, Regional Director 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

5600 American Boulevard West

Suite 990

Bloomington, MN 55437-1458

Contacts for additional information about this project:

Steve Kahl, Refuge Manager

Michigan Islands NWR

6975 Mower Road

Saginaw, MI 48601-9783

Office Phone: (989) 777-5930

Steve Lenz, Refuge Manager

Gravel Island NWR and Green Bay NWR

W4279 Headquarters Road

Mayville, WI 53050

Office Phone: (920) 387-2658

Mark Vaniman, Refuge Manager

Harbor Island, Huron, Michigan Islands NWRs

1674 Refuge Entrance Road

Seney, MI 49883

Office Phone: (906) 586-9851 Ext. 11

Gary Muehlenhardt

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

NWRS/Conservation Planning

5600 American Boulevard West

Suite 990

Bloomington, MN 55437-1458

Office Phone: (612) 713-5477

Throughout this document, five national wildlife refuges (NWRs, refuges) are discussed 

individually—such as the Gravel Island NWR or the Green Bay NWR. This document also 

discusses all five NWRs collectively as one entity and when doing so, refers to the group as the 

“Great Lakes islands refuges” or “Great Lakes islands NWRs.”
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

90

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

1.1 Background

The purpose of the proposed action is to specify a 15-year management direction for islands in 

the Great Lakes that are managed as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, 

Refuge System). This management direction will be described in detail through a set of goals, 

objectives, and strategies in a CCP.

The islands in Michigan waters consist of three refuges that are managed by two Service field 

stations:

1.1.1 Shiawassee NWR

Michigan Islands NWR consisting, in part, of four islands in Lake Huron (Big Charity, Little 

Charity, Scarecrow, and Thunder Bay) are managed by the staff at Shiawassee NWR located in 

Saginaw, MI.

1.1.2 Seney NWR

Three island refuges in Lake Huron, Lake Michigan and Lake Superior are managed by the staff 

at Seney NWR located on the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. These island refuges are Harbor 

Island NWR (Lake Huron), Huron NWR (Lake Superior), and additional portions of Michigan 

Islands NWR (Hat, Shoe, Pismire, and Gull Islands in Lake Michigan).

The island refuges in Wisconsin waters are Gravel Island NWR and Green Bay NWR. The 

refuges consist of five islands in Lake Michigan off the tip of the Door County Peninsula (Gravel, 

Hog, Pilot, Plum and Spider Islands). These refuges are managed by the staff at Horicon NWR 

located in Mayville, WI.

We prepared this EA using guidelines established under the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969. NEPA requires us to examine the effects of proposed actions on the natural 

and human environment. In the following sections we describe three alternatives for future 

management of refuge islands, the environmental consequences of each alternative, and our 

preferred management direction. We have selected our preferred alternative based on 

environmental consequences and the ability to achieve the purpose of each refuge.

1.2 Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose of the proposed action is to specify management directions for all Great Lakes 

island refuges over the coming 15 years. These management directions will be described in 

detail through a distinct set of goals, objectives, and strategies in a CCP.

The action is needed because adequate, long-term management direction does not currently 

exist for these islands. Management is now guided by various general policies and short-term 

plans. The action is also needed to address current management issues and to satisfy the 

legislative mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, which 

requires the preparation of a CCP for all national wildlife refuge system lands in the United 

States.
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

91

This EA will present three management alternatives for the future of the Great Lakes islands

refuges. The preferred alternative will be selected based on its ability to meet identified goals. 

These goals may also be considered as the primary need for action. Common goals for the 

refuges were developed by the planning team and encompass all aspects of management, 

including wildlife management, habitat management, and public use. Each of the management 

alternatives described in this EA will be able to at least minimally achieve these goals.

1.3 Great Lakes Islands Refuges Goals

1.3.1 Ecosystem Goal

Protect and maintain natural ecological communities to promote a healthy functioning 

ecosystem and identify future scenarios for Great Lakes islands ecosystems

1.3.2 Wildlife Goal

Protect, restore and maintain a natural diversity of fish and wildlife native to the Great Lakes, 

with an emphasis on Service Resource Conservation Priority Species. 

1.3.3 Habitat Goal

Perpetuate the biological diversity and integrity of native plant communities to sustain high 

quality habitat for migratory birds, fish, and endangered species. 

1.3.4 People Goal

Communicate and work in partnership with communities, governments, and appropriate 

organizations throughout the Great Lakes watershed to understand and appreciate the island 

ecosystems of the Great Lakes and further the mission of the Refuge System. Protect the 

cultural resources and cultural history of the refuges to assure historical preservation and 

connect refuge staff, visitors, and the community to the area’s past.

1.4 Vision Statement

Management of Great Lakes islands refuges will reflect the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System by conserving in perpetuity a rich mosaic of island habitats and, enabling 

nesting and migrating birds, and other wildlife of conservation concern in the Great Lakes, to 

thrive here. With the help of our conservation partners, we will apply sound, scientific principles 

and adaptive management strategies to sustain the long-term health and integrity of Great 

Lakes habitats; expand community outreach and environmental education and interpretation 

programs; and, stimulate visitors to embrace stewardship of natural resources.

1.5 Decision Framework

The Regional Director for the Midwest Region (Region 3 of the Service) will need to make two 

decisions based on this EA: 1) select an alternative future management, and 2) determine if the 

selected alternative is a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human 

environment, thus requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. The planning 

team has recommended Alternative C (Enhanced Management to Promote Natural Integrity and 
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

92

Public Stewardship) to the Regional Director. The CCP was developed for implementation 

based on this recommendation.

1.6 Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility

The Refuge System includes federal lands managed primarily to provide habitat for a diversity 

of fish, wildlife, and plant species. National wildlife refuges are established under many different 

authorities and funding sources for a variety of purposes. The purposes of the individual island 

refuges were derived primarily from the laws and executive orders that established them. 

Appendix C of the CCP contain a list of the key laws, orders, and regulations that provide a 

framework for the proposed action.

1.7 Scoping of the Issues

The CCP planning process began in February 2009 and included internal discussions and a 

series of public open houses held in communities near the island refuges. See Chapter 2 in the 

CCP for details of the issue scoping process.

1.7.1 Great Lakes Islands Refuges Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities

The following list of issue topics was generated by internal refuge scoping, the public open 

house sessions, and program reviews.

Double-crested Cormorant Management: Strong feelings among some for population reduction 

measures in Green Bay and the Beaver Island chain.

Access: Plum and Pilot Islands were added to the Green Bay NWR in 2007. Many people are 

requesting access to Plum Island for kayak and motor boat landings and hiking on trails. Some 

people requested advertising Harbor Island as part of a kayak trail and establishing boat docks 

and hiking trails, while others had an opposing view to retain the status quo.

Island Acquisition: Several comments were received about adding specific islands in private 

ownership to the refuge system. What criteria should be used for adding islands to the existing 

refuge system?

Cultural Resources: Will cultural resource sites, especially the lighthouses, receive adequate 

care, restoration and protection into the future?

Visitor Services: Should additional wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities be made 

available, or are the existing opportunities for wildlife observation and photography, hunting, and 

environmental education and interpretation adequate?
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

93

Chapter 2: Description of the Alternatives

2.1 Formulation of Alternatives

Based on the issues, concerns, and opportunities we heard during the scoping process, the 

planning team developed three alternative management scenarios that could be used for the 

Great Lakes islands refuges. These alternatives and the consequences of adopting each are 

presented in the EA. The alternatives were formulated under the assumption that staffing and 

budgets would remain constant or grow slowly throughout the life of the plan.

The alternative descriptions presented below provide a general overview of management 

direction. However, many details of management remain on an island-specific basis and will be 

described in Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences. For example, seasonal access 

restrictions and wildlife population control measures will vary from island to island based on 

specific resource concerns.

The three management alternatives were developed to address most of the issues, concerns, 

and opportunities identified during the CCP planning process. Specific impacts of implementing 

each alternative will be examined in five broad issue categories:

Island Acquisition: Should new islands be added to the existing refuge system?

Migratory Birds: What role do the islands that support colonies of nesting waterbirds play in the 

surrounding ecosystem? Are the colonies adequately protected from invasive species and 

human influences?

Cultural Resources: Will cultural resource sites, especially the lighthouses, receive adequate 

care, restoration, and protection into the future?

Access: Should the refuges provide more or fewer public access opportunities?

Visitor Services: Should additional wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities be made 

available, or are the existing opportunities for wildlife observation and photography, hunting, and 

environmental education and interpretation adequate?

2.2 Management Alternatives

2.2.1 Alternative A: Current Direction to Maintain Natural Integrity (No Action)

The current management direction of all Great Lakes islands NWRs would be maintained under 

this alternative. For NEPA purposes, this is referred to as the “No Action” alternative, a 

misnomer as some changes will occur over the next 15 years.

New islands will be added as opportunities and funding arises up to a total of 5,000 acres. 

Protection measures will primarily include transfers from other government agencies and fee 

purchase from federal appropriations. Site-specific actions would be taken to manage

overpopulations of colonial nesting waterbirds, particularly Double-crested Cormorants, when 

compatible with approved joint agency plans and only if desirable co-nesting waterbirds are not 

negatively impacted. Efforts would be made to prevent the introduction of invasive or noxious 

plant and animal species.
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

94

Islands within Congressionally-designated Wilderness will be managed according to the 

wilderness policy of the Service. Refuge management activities will meet the “minimum 

requirement” for administering the area as wilderness as necessary to accomplish the purposes 

of the refuge. Cultural resources related to maritime navigation will be inventoried, restored, and 

protected in cooperation with non-profit organizations and state historic preservation offices.

Visitor facilities such as boat landings, signs, and trails will be very limited or not supplied on 

some islands. Environmental interpretation will focus on the uniqueness of Great Lakes island 

ecosystems and cultural resources.

2.2.2 Alternative B: Minimal Management to Preserve Wilderness Qualities

Alternative B would focus management actions to retain the wilderness character of each island 

to the extent practical. Public access and visitor services would be kept to a minimal level in 

order to reduce visual and habitat impacts.

New islands will be added as opportunities and funding arises, up to a total of 14,500 acres. 

Protection measures will primarily include transfers from other government agencies and fee 

purchase from federal appropriations. Site-specific actions would be taken to manage 

overpopulations of colonial nesting waterbirds, particularly Double-crested Cormorants, when 

compatible with approved joint agency plans and only if desirable co-nesting waterbirds are not 

negatively impacted. Efforts would be made to prevent the introduction of invasive or noxious 

plant and animal species.

Some islands will remain closed to entry except by special use permit. Islands within 

Congressionally-designated Wilderness will be managed according to the wilderness policy of 

the Service. Refuge management activities will meet the “minimum requirement” for 

administering the area as wilderness and necessary to accomplish the purposes of the refuge. 

Cultural resources related to maritime navigation will be inventoried, restored, and protected in 

cooperation with non-profit organizations and state historic preservation offices.

In general, visitors will be encouraged to minimize their impact on these fragile island habitats. 

Boat landing facilities will be very limited or not supplied on some islands. Environmental 

interpretation will focus on the wilderness qualities of Great Lakes islands.

2.2.3 Alternative C: Enhanced Management to Promote Natural Integrity and 

Public Stewardship (Preferred Alternative)

Alternative C would provide for the growth of the island refuges and more opportunities for 

compatible recreational use.

Up to 14,133 acres of new island habitats would be pursued under this alternative. Protection 

measures will include transfers from other government agencies, donations, and fee simple and 

conservation easement purchase from federal and private funding sources. Site-specific actions 

would be taken to control overpopulations of colonial nesting waterbirds, particularly Doublecrested Cormorants, when compatible with approved joint agency plans and only if desirable conesting waterbirds are not negatively impacted. Efforts would be made to prevent the 

introduction of invasive or noxious plant and animal species.
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

95

Islands within Congressionally-designated Wilderness will be managed according to the 

wilderness policy of the Service. Efforts would be made to prevent the introduction of invasive or 

noxious plant and animal species. Cultural resources related to maritime navigation will be 

inventoried, restored, and protected in cooperation with non-profit organizations and state 

historic preservation offices.

In general, visitors will be encouraged to minimize their impact on these fragile island habitats. 

However, new visitor facilities and seasonal programs will be considered on some islands. New 

facilities may include marked trails and designated boat landings. Environmental interpretation 

will focus on the uniqueness of Great Lakes island ecosystems and cultural resources.
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

96

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

This chapter includes a brief overview of the affected environments of the Great Lakes islands

refuges. More details are contained in Chapter 3 of the CCP itself. 

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 General Island Geological and Ecological Background

Michigan and Wisconsin are fortunate to have many islands that form a “waterscape” unlike any 

found elsewhere in the world. Of the three Upper Great Lakes (Huron, Michigan, and Superior), 

there exists approximately 200 islands within the confines of the states in Lake Huron, 76 in 

Lake Michigan, and 175 in Lake Superior (not counting 86 in the St. Mary’s River) (Soule, 

1993). 

The glacial history of island chains differs across the Upper Great Lakes. Glacial till overlying 

limestone bedrock forms the bulk of the Beaver Island group in northern Lake Michigan, 

although Pismire Island (part of Michigan Islands NWR) is an example of a sand and gravel bar 

island. Conversely, most islands in Lake Superior are formed of igneous and metamorphic 

bedrock, with the Huron Islands (of Huron NWR) being the result of granite upthrusts (Soule, 

1993).

Post-glacial history of these islands also varies. National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, 

Refuge System) records indicate that many of the islands of Michigan Islands NWR were either 

impacted by human habitation (Gull Island) or by other uses (e.g., Hat Island was used as 

bombing range prior to refuge establishment) (Gates, 1950). Likewise, Huron NWR and Harbor 

Island NWR have had a history of human disturbance and manipulations (e.g., buildings are or 

were on both these refuges). 

3.2 Archeological and Cultural Values 

Several of the lighthouses and associated buildings on the islands (West Huron, Plum and Pilot 

Islands) have been placed on the National Register of Historic Places. No other historic or 

prehistoric sites have been identified as eligible for the National Register. See Chapter 3 of the 

CCP for more details.

3.3 Social and Economic Context

Now the Great Lakes basin is home to more than one-tenth of the population of the United 

States and one-quarter of the population of Canada. Some of the world's largest concentrations 

of industrial capacity are located in the Great Lakes Region. Nearly 25 percent of the total 

Canadian agricultural production and 7 percent of the American production are located in the 

basin. The United States considers the Great Lakes a fourth seacoast, and the Great Lakes 

Region is a dominant factor in the Canadian industrial economy. 

3.4 Natural Resources
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

97

Habitats, wildlife species, and endangered species of each individual island refuge are

described in Chapter 3 of the CCP. Also, lists of species for specific islands can be found in 

Appendix D.

3.5 Visitor Services

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 emphasizes wildlife 

management and that all prospective public uses on any given unit of the Refuge System must 

be compatible with the wildlife-related purposes before they can be allowed. The Improvement 

Act also identifies six priority uses of national wildlife refuges that in most cases are considered 

compatible uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation. Opportunities to participate in all of these wildlife-dependent 

activities exist on the island refuges.
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

98

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4.1 Effects Common to All Alternatives

Specific environmental and social impacts of implementing each alternative are compared in 

table A-1 within the broad categories of wildlife, habitat, and people. However, several potential 

effects will be very similar under each alternative and are summarized below:

4.1.1 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations” was signed by President Clinton on February 11, 

1994. Its purpose was to focus the attention of federal agencies 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 management alternatives for the five refuges described in this EA would 

disproportionately place any adverse environmental, economic, social, or health impacts on 

minority and low-income populations. The percentage of minorities in Door County, Wisconsin 

and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan is lower than in Michigan and Wisconsin (and much lower 

than the United States). Average incomes and poverty rates within the counties are comparable 

to other rural counties in the state. Public use activities that would be offered under each of the 

alternatives would be available to any visitor regardless of race, ethnicity, or income level.

4.1.2 Climate Change Impacts 

The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an order in January 2001 requiring federal agencies 

under its direction that have land management responsibilities to consider potential climate 

change impacts as part of long range planning endeavors. The increase of carbon dioxide (CO2

) 

within the earth’s atmosphere has been linked to the gradual rise in surface temperature 

commonly referred to as global warming. In relation to comprehensive conservation planning for 

national wildlife refuges, carbon sequestration constitutes the primary climate-related impact 

that refuges can affect in a small way. The U.S. Department of Energy’s “Carbon Sequestration 

Research and Development” defines carbon sequestration as “ . . . the capture and secure 

storage of carbon that would otherwise be emitted to or remain in the atmosphere.”

See Chapter 3 of the CCP for more detail on potential climate change impacts in the Great 

Lakes Region.

4.1.3 Cultural Resources 

The Service is responsible for managing archeological and historic sites found on national 

wildlife refuges. Known cultural resources occur on several islands, and there may be 

undiscovered cultural resources awaiting discovery. Under each of the alternatives evaluated in 
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

99

this EA, refuge management would ensure compliance with relevant federal laws and 

regulations, particularly Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Prior to all habitat 

and facility projects, appropriate efforts will be made to identify cultural resources within the area 

of potential impact by contacting the Regional Historic Preservation Officer.

4.1.4 Fire Management

Many of the islands are small and sparsely vegetated with little or no history of wildfires. 

However, on islands containing forests, brush or dense grasslands the use of prescribed fire 

may be beneficial to habitat or the protection of historic structures. In the future, management 

ignited wildland fire maybe used to reduce hazardous fuel loads, control invasive vegetation, 

and mimic natural disturbance patterns to enhance and maintain wildlife habitat.

4.1.5 Other Common Effects

None of the alternatives would have more than negligible—or at most minor—effects on soils, 

topography, noise levels, land use patterns in and around the refuge, transportation and traffic, 

waste management, human health and safety, or visual resources.

4.2 Cumulative Environmental Impacts Analysis

“Cumulative environmental impacts” refer to effects that result from the incremental impact of 

the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other 

actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions 

taking place over a period of time. Land parcels under the jurisdiction of the Great Lakes islands 

refuges are relatively small and scattered over many counties. No cumulative impacts have 

been identified for actions suggested in this EA.
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

100

Table A-1: Comparison of Environmental Consequences by Management Alternative

Issues

Alternative A: Current 

Direction to Maintain 

Natural Integrity (No Action)

Alternative B: Minimal 

Management to Preserve 

Wilderness Qualities 

Alternative C: Enhanced 

Management to Promote 

Natural Integrity and Public 

Stewardship (Preferred)

Goal 1: Ecosystem – Protect and maintain natural ecological communities to promote a healthy functioning ecosystem and identify 

future scenarios for Great Lakes islands ecosystems

Island Acquisition Conserve up to 150 acres of 

island habitat through full 

purchase, easements or 

transfer.

Conserve up to 5,000 acres of 

island habitat through full 

purchase, easements or 

transfer.

Conserve up to 14,133 acres 

of island habitat through full 

purchase, easements or 

transfer.

Climate Change See Common to All 

Alternatives

Same as A. Same as A.

Goal 2: Wildlife – Protect, restore and maintain a natural diversity of fish and wildlife native to the Great Lakes, with an emphasis 

on Service Resource Conservation Priority Species.

Migratory Bird Populations Natural fluctuation of colonial 

waterbird nesting populations. 

Opportunistic use by 

migrating songbirds.

Same as A. Increase in nesting waterbird 

populations due to active 

protection measures and 

control of non-target species.

Over-abundant Wildlife 

Species

Decrease in Double-crested 

Cormorant populations on 

most islands with colonies. 

Stable to decease in whitetailed deer numbers, where 

present.

Stable to slight increase in 

Double-crested Cormorant 

populations on most islands 

with colonies. Stable to 

increase in white-tailed deer 

numbers, where present.

Decrease in Double-crested 

Cormorant populations on 

most islands with colonies. 

Stable to decrease in whitetailed deer numbers, where 

present.

Exotic and Invasive Species 

Control

Reduce non-native Mute 

Swan populations through 

active control measures 

(Green Bay NWR only).

Increase monitoring of 

invasive plants and control 

infestations.

Same as A & B.

Goal 3: Habitat – Perpetuate the biological diversity and integrity of native plant communities to sustain high quality habitat for 

migratory birds, fish, and endangered species.

Rare Habitats Stable. Protect Great Lakes 

Alvar communities (~100 

acres) on islands containing 

this globally-rare habitat.

Same as A. Increase in protected Great 

Lakes alvar communities on 

islands containing this 

globally-rare habitat. Increase 

will occur through island 

acquisition.

Goal 4: People – Communicate and work in partnership with communities, governments, and appropriate organizations throughout 

the Great Lakes watershed to understand and appreciate the island ecosystems of the Great Lakes and further the mission of the 

Refuge System.

Public Access Stable to slight increase due 

to new access opportunities 

on Plum and Harbor Islands.

Stable. Public access will be 

kept to a minimum to enhance 

wilderness appreciation.

Same as A plus new access 

options at Harbor Island NWR 

and islands acquired in the 

future.

Environmental Education and 

Outreach

Slight increase due to new 

opportunities on Plum and 

Harbor Islands.

Same as A. Same as A plus new 

opportunities at Huron NWR 

and islands acquired in the 

future.

Goal 5: Cultural Resources – Protect the cultural resources and cultural history of the refuges to assure historical preservation and 

connect refuge staff, visitors, and the community to the area’s past.

Protection of Cultural 

Resources

Slight increase due to historic 

building restoration efforts at 

Huron NWR and Plum and 

Pilot Islands.

Stable to slight increase due to 

historic building restoration 

efforts at Huron NWR and 

Plum and Pilot Islands.

Same as A with new 

protection or restoration efforts 

on islands acquired in the 

future.
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

101

Chapter 5: List of Preparers

5.1 Refuge Staff

Michigan Islands NWR (Shiawassee NWR)

Steve Kahl, Refuge Manager

Gravel Island NWR and Green Bay NWR

Patti Meyers, Former Refuge Manager

Sadie O’Dell, Wildlife Biologist

Michigan Islands NWR (Seney NWR), Harbor Island NWR, and Huron NWR

Mark Vaniman, Refuge Manager

Greg Corace, Forester

Greg McClellan, Assistant Refuge Manager

5.2 Regional Office Staff

Gary Muehlenhardt, Wildlife Biologist/Refuge Planner, Region 3, USFWS

Gabriel DeAlessio, Biologist-GIS, Region 3, USFWS

James Myster, Regional Historic Preservation Officer, Region 3, USFWS

Mark Hogeboom, Writer/Editor, Region 3, USFWS
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

102

Chapter 6: Consultation and Coordination with Stakeholders

The refuge and regional planning staffs have conducted extensive consultation and coordination 

over three years with stakeholders in developing the CCP and EA for the Great Lakes islands 

refuges. In the course of scoping and other meetings, the Service consulted with more than 200 

individuals representing Michigan and Wisconsin DNRs, conservation organizations, 

neighboring communities, and other stakeholders. See Chapter 2 of the CCP for a more 

detailed description of the process.
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

103

Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility 

Determinations

In this appendix:

Appropriate Use Determinations

Compatibility Determinations

Throughout this document, five national wildlife refuges are discussed individually—such as the 

Gravel Island NWR or the Green Bay NWR. This document also discusses all five NWRs 

collectively as one entity and when doing so, refers to the group as the “Great Lakes islands 

refuges” or “Great Lakes islands NWRs.”

Further, several appropriate use and compatibility determination documents in this appendix 

may include any of the following references, spelled out or abbreviated:

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service)

• National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, System)

• National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge)

• Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)

• Environmental Assessment (EA)

• Department of Natural Resources (DNR)

• U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)

This appendix provides the following Appropriate Use Determinations and Compatibility 

Determinations listed for each national wildlife refuge.

Appropriate Use Determinations

Gravel and Green Bay NWRs

• Special Events (non-refuge sponsored)

• Research

• Commercially Guided Wildlife and Wildland Tours and Activities

Harbor Island NWR

• Mushroom and Berry Picking

Michigan Islands NWR

• Research (includes Huron NWR and Harbor Island NWR)
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

104

Compatibility Determinations

Gravel and Green Bay NWRs

• Hunting

• Environmental Education and Interpretation

• Wildlife Observation and Photography (including means of access)

• Special Events (non-refuge sponsored)

• Research

• Commercially Guided Wildlife and Wildland Tours and Activities

Harbor Island NWR

• Environmental Education and Interpretation

• Wildlife Observation and Photography (including means of access)

• Hunting

• Mushroom and Berry Picking

Huron NWR

• Wildlife Observation and Photography (including means of access)

• Environmental Education and Interpretation

Michigan Islands NWR

• Priority Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses (Hunting, Fishing, Wildlife Observation 

and Photography, Environmental Education and Interpretation) on Scarecrow, Thunder 

Bay, Sugar, Big Charity and Little Charity Islands

• Research (includes Huron NWR and Harbor Island NWR)
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

105

Appropriate Use Determinations

The Service’s Appropriate Use policy describes the initial decision process a Refuge Manager 

follows when first considering whether or not to allow a proposed use on a refuge. The Refuge 

Manager must first find a use to be appropriate before undertaking a compatibility review of the

use and outlining the stipulations of the use. 

This policy clarifies and expands on the compatibility policy (Service Manual, 603 FW 2.10 D

(1)), which describes when Refuge Managers should deny a proposed use without determining 

compatibility. If we find a proposed use is not appropriate, we will not allow the use and will not 

prepare a compatibility determination. By screening out proposed uses not appropriate to the 

refuge, the Refuge Manager avoids unnecessary compatibility reviews. By following the process 

for finding the appropriateness of a use, we strengthen and fulfill the Refuge System mission. 

Although a refuge use may be both appropriate and compatible, the Refuge Manager retains 

the authority to not allow the use or modify the use.

Background for this policy as it applies to the Great Lakes islands refuges is in the following 

statutory authorities:

• National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (Administration Act), as 

amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 

668dd-668ee) (Improvement Act). This law provides the authority for establishing 

policies and regulations governing refuge uses, including the authority to prohibit certain 

harmful activities. The Administration Act does not authorize any particular use, but 

rather authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to allow uses only when they are 

compatible. The Improvement Act provides the Refuge System mission and includes 

specific directives and a clear hierarchy of public uses on the Refuge System.

• Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, (16 U.S.C. 460k). This law authorizes the Secretary of 

the Interior to allow public recreation in areas of the Refuge System when the use is an 

“appropriate incidental or secondary use.” 

This policy does NOT apply to:

• Situations where reserved rights or legal mandates provide we must allow certain uses.

• Refuge management activities. Refuge management activities conducted by the Refuge 

System or a Refuge System-authorized agent are designed to conserve fish, wildlife, 

and plants and their habitats. These activities are used to fulfill a refuge purpose(s) or 

the Refuge System mission, and are based on sound professional judgment. 

Uses that have been administratively determined to be appropriate are: 

• Six wildlife-dependent recreational uses. As defined by the Improvement Act, the six 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation) are determined to be 

appropriate. However, the Refuge Manager must still determine if these uses are 

compatible. 

• Take of fish and wildlife under state regulations. States have regulations concerning take 

of wildlife that includes hunting, fishing, and trapping. We consider take of wildlife under 
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

106

such regulations appropriate. However, the Refuge Manager must determine if the 

activity is compatible before allowing it on a refuge. 

Refuge uses must meet at least one of the following four conditions to be deemed appropriate:

• It is a wildlife-dependent recreational use of a refuge as identified in the Improvement 

Act.

• It contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the Refuge System mission, or goals or 

objectives described in a refuge management plan approved after the Improvement Act 

was signed into law. 

• The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under state regulations.

• The Refuge Manager has evaluated the use following the guidelines in this policy and 

found that it is appropriate. The criteria used by the manager to evaluate 

appropriateness are on each of the appropriate use forms included in this appendix. 

Also included under this condition are ‘specialized uses,’ or uses that require specific 

authorization from the Refuge System, often in the form of a Special Use Permit, letter of 

authorization, or other permit document. These uses do not include uses already 

granted by a prior existing right. We make appropriateness findings for specialized uses 

on a case-by-case basis.
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

107

Gravel and Green Bay NWRs

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Gravel and Green Bay National Wildlife Refuges 

Use: Special Events (non-refuge sponsored)

This exhibit is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by 

the State, or uses already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved 

after October 9, 1997. 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it 

further as we cannot control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or 

unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the 

other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the Refuge Manager has consulted with state fish and wildlife agencies.

Yes ___ No ___ 

When the Refuge Manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, 

the Refuge Manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the Refuge 

Supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the 

proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate X .

Refuge Manager: /Steve Lenz/ Date: 7/20/2012 .

Decision Criteria: YES NO

Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X

Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and 

local)? 

X

Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? 

X

Is the use consistent with public safety? X

Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

X

Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

X

Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X

Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

X

Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

108

Justification: Disturbance to wildlife and habitat will be minimal since this use will occur on 

existing trails, be periodic, and relatively short duration. Wildlife disturbed will be displaced 

during the event, but should return to the areas affected quickly. Adjacent habitat is abundant 

for wildlife to use when disturbed. Stipulations in place will minimize disturbance, ensure control 

of the events, and contribute to the mission of the Refuge System by requiring an interpretive or 

environmental education component. This use will also expose large numbers of people to the 

refuge and help them gain a better understanding and appreciation of the refuge. These events 

are also consistent with the agency commitment to protecting and managing cultural resources 

in a spirit of stewardship for future generations to understand and enjoy. The number of events, 

and their size and scope, remains under the control of the Refuge Manager through the 

requirement of a Special Use Permit. 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the 

use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the Refuge Supervisor 

must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor: _________________________________________________ 

Date:_______________

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

109

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Green Bay and Gravel Island National Wildlife Refuges

Use: Research

This exhibit is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by 

the State, or uses already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved 

after October 9, 1997. 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it 

further as we cannot control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or 

unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the 

other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the Refuge Manager has consulted with state fish and wildlife agencies.

Yes ___ No ___ 

When the Refuge Manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, 

the Refuge Manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the Refuge 

Supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the 

proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate X .

Refuge Manager: /Steve Lenz/ Date: 7/20/2012 .

Justification: This use is appropriate provided that specific stipulations are implemented. 

Research and monitoring information is critical to making sound biological decisions in the 

restoration and management of ecosystems/landscapes for fish and wildlife communities 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X

Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and 

local)? 

X

Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? 

X

Is the use consistent with public safety? X

Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

X

Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

X

Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X

Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

X

Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

110

occurring on national wildlife refuges. It is needed to measure the successes and failures of 

management efforts. This is an important use with long-term benefits that ensures we have the 

best information possible upon which to base management decisions.

If found to be Not Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the 

use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the Refuge Supervisor 

must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor: _____________________________________

Date: _______________

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

111

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Gravel and Green Bay National Wildlife Refuges

Use: Commercially Guided Wildlife and Wildland Tours and Activities

This exhibit is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by 

the State, or uses already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved 

after October 9, 1997. 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it 

further as we cannot control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or 

unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the 

other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the Refuge Manager has consulted with state fish and wildlife agencies.

Yes ___ No ___ 

When the Refuge Manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, 

the Refuge Manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the Refuge 

Supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the 

proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate X .

Refuge Manager: /Steve Lenz/ Date: 7/20/2012 .

Justification: In accordance with the missions of the National Wildlife Refuge System, Green 

Bay NWR, and the 1997 Improvement Act, this use has been determined appropriate provided 

specific stipulations are implemented. This use will promote public awareness and stewardship 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X

Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and 

local)? 

X

Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? 

X

Is the use consistent with public safety? X

Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

X

Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed?

X

Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X

Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

X

Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

112

of the refuges’ natural and cultural resources. It does not materially interfere with or detract from 

the Service's ability to meet the mission of the Refuge System.

If found to be Not Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the 

use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the Refuge Supervisor 

must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor: _________________________________________________ 

Date:_______________

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

113

Harbor Island NWR

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Harbor Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Mushroom and Berry Picking

This exhibit is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by 

the State, or uses already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved 

after October 9, 1997. 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it 

further as we cannot control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or 

unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the 

other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the Refuge Manager has consulted with state fish and wildlife agencies.

Yes ___ No ___ 

When the Refuge Manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, 

the Refuge Manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the Refuge 

Supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the 

proposed use is:

Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate X .

Refuge Manager: /Mark Vaniman/ Date: 7/20/2012 .

Decision Criteria: YES NO

Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X

Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and 

local)? 

X

Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? 

X

Is the use consistent with public safety? X

Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

X

Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

X

Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X

Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

X

Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

114

Justification: This use has little impact to wildlife or habitat since it is recreational in nature and 

few people participate. A very small percentage of available fruit is harvested so no appreciable 

effect on wildlife mast is anticipated. This activity provides hours of enjoyable recreation and 

promotes a positive image of the refuge.

If found to be Not Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the 

use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the Refuge Supervisor 

must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor: _________________________________________________ 

Date:_______________

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

115

Michigan Islands NWR

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Michigan Islands, Harbor Island, and Huron National Wildlife Refuges

Use: Research

This exhibit is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by 

the State, or uses already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved 

after October 9, 1997. 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it 

further as we cannot control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or 

unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the 

other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the Refuge Manager has consulted with state fish and wildlife agencies. 

Yes ___ No ___ 

When the Refuge Manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, 

the Refuge Manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the Refuge 

Supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the 

proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate X .

Refuge Manager: /Steve Kahl/ Date: 7/20/2012 .

Decision Criteria: YES NO

Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X

Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and 

local)? 

X

Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? 

X

Is the use consistent with public safety? X

Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

X

Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed?

X

Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X

Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

X

Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

116

Refuge Manager: /Mark Vaniman/ Date: 7/20/2012 .

Justification: This use has been determined appropriate provided specific stipulations are 

implemented. Research and monitoring information is critical to making sound biological 

decisions in the restoration and management of ecosystems/landscapes for fish and wildlife 

communities occurring on refuges. It is needed to measure the successes and failures of 

management efforts. This is an important use with long-term benefits that ensures we have the 

best information possible upon which to base management decisions.

If found to be Not Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the 

use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the Refuge Supervisor 

must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor: _________________________________________________ 

Date:_______________

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

117

Compatibility Determinations

Gravel and Green Bay NWRs

Compatibility Determination

Use: Hunting

Refuge Name: Green Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Door County

Green Bay NWR: Plum Island (325 acres)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Plum Island was transferred from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service on October 17, 2007 under the authority of the Federal Land Management and 

Policy Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (2000).

Refuge Purpose:

Plum Island: “ . . . to protect native and migratory bird habitat and endangered species habitat 

within the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem.” Public Land Order 7681, dated October 17, 2007. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The mission is to administer a national network of lands and water for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resource habitats 

within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.

Description of Use: 

What is the use? The use is hunting of deer on Plum Island as an activity conducted by the 

general public under regulation authority of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act and the National Wildlife Refuge System. Since 1982, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)

allowed deer hunting on the island. When the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service retained 

ownership, hunting was allowed to continue, but by permit only. About 76 people have hunted 

since 2007, harvesting 39 deer. It is critical to control the deer herd on the island in order to 

protect the forest diversity. Upon completion of a Refuge Hunt Plan, the refuge proposes to 

continue offering hunting opportunities for deer, either continuing by a permit system or open to 

the general public. 

Where is the use conducted? Currently, the entire 325 acres of Plum Island is open for deer 

hunting by permit. 

How is the use conducted? Hunting will be conducted under state- and refuge-specific federal 

regulations. Hunting activities are intended to meet the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act and some of the refuge objectives and management goals without adversely 

affecting the primary objectives and mission of the refuge.
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

118

Completing this activity under a hunting plan allows the refuge to accomplish its management 

goals and provide needed safety levels for citizens of the area without adversely affecting 

refuge habitats and wildlife populations. 

When would the use be conducted? The hunting seasons will follow state seasons. Generally, 

the deer season begins in mid-September with archery, followed by gun hunting and then 

another late archery hunt. All deer hunting ends around the first week of January.

Details about when, where, and how the hunts are conducted will be defined in the hunt

management plan. All hunting activities will follow applicable state laws, except where the 

refuge administers further restrictions to ensure a quality hunt and visitor and staff safety. 

Hunting activities can only occur in designated areas listed in the hunt management plan. 

Why is this use being proposed? Hunting is one of the priority uses outlined by Congress in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. The Service supports and 

encourages priority uses on national wildlife refuge lands where appropriate and compatible. 

Hunting is used in some instances to manage wildlife populations and can provide pertinent 

biological information to state wildlife agencies. Hunting is also a traditional form of wildlife 

oriented recreation that can be accommodated on many national wildlife refuge lands. In Door 

County, many private islands and state areas offer similar hunting opportunities.

Availability of Resources:

Approximately $5,000 of staff time will be required to administer and manage these activities. 

Time will be spent on managing the permit system for this hunt, issuing news releases, and 

conducting law enforcement. Some of the costs could be offset by the Recreational Fee 

Program if a permit program was established for Plum Island. Law enforcement staff from the 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources from Door County will provide limited monitoring. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use:

Hunting is consistent with the purposes of the refuge when carried out within established 

regulations and is a priority uses identified in the Refuge Improvement Act. Island visitation is 

expected to be minimal (and will be limited if a permit system is established) and anticipated 

uses and impacts should also be minimal since all access will be outside of the bird nesting 

season. The hunters will cause some disturbance to other wildlife, but the disturbance is minor 

and short-term. 

Illegal use of permanent or overnight tree stands could be an impact if trees are damaged or if 

staff has to spend time removing stands. Litter may also be a problem, especially when spent 

shotgun shells are left on the island. Impact to the vegetation is minimal and temporary.

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment, which was announced in the Federal Register and available for 

public review.

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

119

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife Refuge System and Green Bay Refuge goals and 

objectives the activity can only occur under the following stipulations:

All state hunting regulations will apply to hunting on the Island unless otherwise stated in the 

Refuge Hunt Plan.

All hunting activities and operations will be reviewed annually to ensure compliance with all 

applicable laws, regulations, and policies.

Protection will be given to listed species, such as the federally threatened dwarf lake iris and 

any nesting bald eagles by restricting access to certain areas.

Justification:

This use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented. 

This use is being permitted as it is a priority public use and will not diminish the primary purpose 

of the refuge. This use will meet the mission of the Refuge System by providing renewable 

resources for the benefit of the American public while conserving fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources on these islands. 

Without a hunting program specifically used as a management tool, the refuge deer population 

may adversely affect plant communities, and hence alter ecological diversity and succession. 

This may result in significant negative impacts on both plant and other animal communities 

including some of special concern or of Service trust responsibility. This impact has been well 

documented and accepted through research over a period of many years.

In addition, a deer hunting program is necessary to ensure that the Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources deer population goals are met, especially in controlling the spread of chronic 

wasting disease within the state’s deer population.

Hunting is a recreational opportunity that will provide much enjoyment to the people who are in 

need of a place to hunt. 

Refuge Manager: /Steven J. Lenz/ Date: 10/9/2012

Regional Chief: /Tom Worthington (Acting)/ Date: 12/10/2012

Mandatory 10-or 15-year Re-evaluations Date: 2027
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

120

Compatibility Determination

Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation

Refuge Name: Gravel Island and Green Bay National Wildlife Refuges, Door County

Gravel Island NWR: Gravel Island (10 acres) and Spider Island (25 acres)

Green Bay NWR: Hog Island (2 acres), Plum Island (325 acres), and Pilot Island (3.7 acres)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Gravel, Spider, and Hog Islands were established by Executive Order No. 1678 of January 9, 

1913, and Executive Order No. 1487 of February 21, 1912, respectively. Public Law 91-504, 

October 23, 1970 designated the existing Green Bay and Gravel Island NWRs as a Wilderness 

Area.

Plum and Pilot Islands were transferred from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service on October 17, 2007 under the authority of the Federal Land 

Management and Policy Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (2000).

Refuge Purpose:

Gravel Island NWR: “ . . . as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds.” Executive Order 

1678, dated January 9, 1913.

Green Bay NWR: Hog Island: “ . . . as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds.” 

Executive Order 1487, dated February 21, 1912.

Plum and Pilot Islands: “ . . . to protect native and migratory bird habitat and endangered 

species habitat within the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem.” Public Land Order 7681, dated 

October 17, 2007. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The mission is to administer a national network of lands and water for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resource habitats 

within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.

Description of Use: 

What is the use? Environmental education consists of public outreach and onsite activities 

conducted by refuge staff, volunteers, teachers, and university professors. Environmental 

education may include staff led overnight activities with youth groups (e.g., Girl Scouts and 

Youth Conservation Corp.). Interpretation occurs in less formal activities with refuge staff and 

volunteers or through exhibits, signs, and brochures.

Where is the use conducted? On Plum Island, the activities may include traditional 

environmental education activities (teacher-led or staff-led onsite field trips, teacher and student 

workshops), offsite programs in classrooms, nature study, and interpretation of the wildlife 
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

121

resources and a possible support facility such as interpretive trails and a visitor contact station. 

Access to Plum Island is by private or commercial tour boat.

Gravel, Spider, Hog, and Pilot Islands will remain closed to public entry to ensure necessary 

protection of nesting birds. Environmental education and interpretation activities will occur at a 

distance from the Islands (e.g., by boat around the perimeter of the Islands) or be offered offsite.

How is the use conducted? All environmental education and interpretation activities will be 

conducted with the refuge's primary goals, objectives, and habitat management requirements as 

the guiding principles. Activities done under these restrictions allow the refuge to accomplish its 

management goals and provide for the safety of visitors. All programs will include a description 

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge System. All of the programs will address a 

number of wildlife conservation issues such as management, watershed, habitat, wildlife, 

endangered species, invasive species, etc.

Why is this use being proposed? Permitting this activity would be consistent with the National

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, and help accomplish refuge goals and promote 

understanding, appreciation, and support for its mission.

Plum Island contains a number of historic buildings and related structures including the front 

and rear range lights, the original keeper’s quarters, a fog signal building, the USCG station and 

a substantial boathouse and dock. The rear range light, built in 1896, is still operational and 

listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The remaining Plum Island District (buildings, 

structures, and cross island trail) was recently added to the National Register of Historic Places. 

There is also a concentration of shipwrecks, dating from the 1800s and early 1900s. A 

partnership between the Service and the Friends of Plum and Pilot Islands, currently helps 

support the preservation, restoration, and maintenance of the lighthouse and other historic 

structures, while also protecting wildlife resources. Plum Island provides an excellent 

opportunity to integrate history and local community traditions and values into refuge interpretive 

and education programs.

Availability of Resources:

A full-time Visitor Services Specialist will be required to fully implement this activity to better 

meet one of the highest priorities for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is “Connecting 

People with Nature: Ensuring the Future of Conservation.” Their major responsibility would be 

to cooperatively work with partners and volunteers to implement a Visitor Services Plan for Plum 

Island. Costs for the 1 FTE and associated materials would be $170,000. Most of this cost 

would be up front as the program is initially set up. After environmental education and 

interpretive activities are in place, maintenance and improvement of refuge interpretive signs, 

trails, etc. will be periodically monitored. Trained volunteers will also provide a valuable service 

in these programs. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use:

Environmental education and interpretation are not expected to have measurable environmental 

impacts on the refuge, its habitats, or wildlife species. Disturbance to wildlife is limited to 

occasional incidents like flushing wildlife. Restrictions on locations, time of year, and number of 

users in the environmental education and interpretation programs will be placed to assure 

minimal disturbance to wildlife, especially nesting birds. 
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

122

There are two unmaintained “trails” on Plum Island that were historically used by the USCG. 

Plans are to clear the existing (but overgrown) perimeter trail and develop it into an interpretive 

trail. A section of the trail is currently home to the federally threatened dwarf lake iris. This 

section will be re-routed to assure necessary protection. The existing “cross-island” trail, which 

connects the lifesaving station on the north side of the island to the keeper’s quarters and rear 

range light on the south side of the island will be closed and/or re-routed to avoid disturbing an 

active Bald Eagles nest. 

The activities will follow all applicable laws, regulations and policies including Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act, Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations, National Wildlife Refuge System 

Manual, National Wildlife Refuge System goals and objectives, and Green Bay and Gravel 

Island NWRs goals and objectives. These activities comply with the purpose of the refuge and 

the National Wildlife Refuge System mission. Operating these activities does not alter the 

refuge's ability to meet habitat goals and it helps support several of the primary objectives of the 

refuge. 

Environmental education and interpretation are priority public uses listed in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act. By facilitating these uses 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 on 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.

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment, which was announced in the Federal Register and available for 

public comment for 30 days.

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife Refuge System and refuge goals and objectives, 

environmental education and interpretation will only occur under the following stipulation: 

Environmental education and interpretation will only occur in developed areas designated by the 

CCP or a step-down plan or under the guidance of a refuge staff member, volunteer, or trained 

teacher to assure minimal disturbance to wildlife, minimal vegetation damage, and minimal user 

conflict between other public uses.

Justification:

The refuge uses partnerships and environmental education to motivate citizens of all ages to 

action and understanding in protecting a healthy ecosystem. Partnerships and environmental 

education are tools used to build a land ethic and lessen vandalism, littering, and poaching.
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

123

The minor impacts to vegetation and wildlife, which may occur are a worthwhile tradeoff for 

informing visitors about island wildlife and providing an opportunity for active land stewardship. 

Refuge Manager: /Steven J. Lenz/ Date: 10/9/2012

Regional Chief: /Tom Worthington (Acting)/ Date: 12/10/2012

Mandatory 10-or 15-year Re-evaluations Date: 2027
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

124

Compatibility Determination

Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography (including means of access)

Refuge Name: Gravel Island and Green Bay National Wildlife Refuges, Door County

Gravel Island NWR: Gravel Island (10 acres) and Spider Island (25 acres)

Green Bay NWR: Hog Island (2 acres), Plum Island (325 acres), and Pilot Island (3.7 acres)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Gravel, Spider, and Hog Islands were established by Executive Order No. 1678 of January 9, 

1913, and Executive Order No. 1487 of February 21, 1912, respectively. Public Law 91-504, 

October 23, 1970 designated the existing Green Bay and Gravel Island NWR as a Wilderness 

Area.

Plum and Pilot Islands were transferred from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service on October 17, 2007 under the authority of the Federal Land 

Management and Policy Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (2000).

Refuge Purpose:

Gravel Island NWR: “ . . . as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds.” Executive Order 

1678, dated January 9, 1913.

Green Bay NWR: Hog Island: “ . . . as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds.” 

Executive Order 1487, dated February 21, 1912.

Plum and Pilot Islands: “ . . . to protect native and migratory bird habitat and endangered 

species habitat within the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem.” Public Land Order 7681, dated 

October 17, 2007. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The mission is to administer a national network of lands and water for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resource habitats 

within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.

Description of Use: 

What is the use? Conduct and allow access for priority public uses (wildlife observation and, 

photography) as provided for under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997. Provide public access on Plum Island to observe and/or photograph wildlife and refuge 

habitats by means of hiking. 

The current dock on Plum Island will provide access to the visiting public, however; 

opportunities will be limited due to the current condition of the dock. A kayak access point will 

be established to facilitate wildlife observation and photography. On the other islands, (Gravel, 

Spider, Pilot, and Hog), which are closed to public entry, these uses will occur at a distance 

from the Islands (e.g., by boat around the perimeter of the Islands).
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

125

Where is the use conducted? There are two unmaintained “trails” on Plum Island that were 

historically used by the USCG. The existing (but overgrown) perimeter trail will be cleared and 

developed into an interpretive trail. A section of the trail is currently home to the federally 

threatened dwarf lake iris. This section will need to be re-routed to assure necessary protection. 

The existing “cross-island” trail, which connects the lifesaving station on the north side of the 

island to the keeper’s quarters and rear range light on the south side of the island will need to 

be closed and/or re-routed to avoid disturbing an active Bald Eagles nest. The trails will allow 

for wildlife observation and environmental education opportunities on Plum Island. 

The boathouse on Plum Island may be used as a visitor contact station and exhibit space to 

provide information about Green Bay and Gravel Island NWRs, the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, Great Lakes Basin ecology, and historical resources on Plum and Pilot Islands. 

Additionally, the USCG station may be used as a research station and bunkhouse for refuge 

staff, researchers, and volunteers. 

How is the use conducted? All wildlife observation and photography activities will be conducted 

with the refuge's primary objectives, habitat management requirements, and goals as the 

guiding principles. Activities done under these restrictions will allow the refuge to accomplish its 

management goals and provide for the safety of visitors.

Why is this use being proposed? Wildlife observation and photography are priority public uses 

on National Wildlife Refuge System Lands as identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. Entry on all or portions of individual areas may be temporarily 

suspended due to unusual or critical conditions affecting land, water, vegetation, wildlife 

populations, or public safety. 

Availability of Resources:

A full-time Visitor Services Specialist will be required to fully implement this activity to better 

meet one of the highest priorities for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is “Connecting 

People with Nature: Ensuring the Future of Conservation.” Their major responsibility would be 

to cooperatively work with partners and volunteers to implement a Visitor Services Plan for Plum 

Island. Costs for the 1 FTE and associated materials would be $170,000. Most of this cost 

would be up front as the program is initially set up. After wildlife observation and photography 

activities are in place, maintenance and improvement of refuge interpretive signs, trails, etc. will 

be periodically monitored. Trained volunteers will also provide a valuable service in these 

programs. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use:

Wildlife observation and photography are not expected to have measurable environmental 

impacts on the refuge, its habitats, or wildlife species. Disturbance to wildlife is limited to 

occasional incidents like flushing wildlife. Restrictions on locations and time of year will be 

placed to assure minimal disturbance to wildlife, especially nesting birds. 

The activities will follow all applicable laws, regulations, and policies including Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act, Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations, National Wildlife Refuge System 

Manual, National Wildlife Refuge System goals and objectives, and Green Bay and Gravel 

Island NWRs goals and objectives. These activities comply with the purpose of the refuge and 

the National Wildlife Refuge System mission. Operating these activities does not alter the 
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

126

refuge's ability to meet habitat goals and it helps support several of the primary objectives of the 

refuge. 

Wildlife observation and photography are priority public uses listed in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act. By facilitating these uses 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 on 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.

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment, which was announced in the Federal Register and available for 

public comment for 30 days.

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

The priority public uses (wildlife observation and photography) will be incorporated into the 

Refuge Management Program. These uses will be allowed based on stipulations, mechanisms,

and regulations that will help to ensure compatibility with refuge purposes and may include:

1. Day use only to decrease the disturbance to wildlife.

2. Accommodating/focusing use to specific areas of the refuge, such as trails to limit overall 

disturbance to refuge habitats and wildlife, especially in regards to the listed species.

3. Seasonal island closures to protect nesting birds.

4. Special Use Permits with appropriate conditions.

5. Refuge signing and information in brochures.

6. Posting refuge regulations.

7. Monitoring by refuge staff, volunteers, and partners.

8. Promoting the “Leave No Trace” philosophy.

Justification:

This use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulations are considered. This 

use is being permitted as it is a priority public use and will not diminish the primary purpose of 

the refuge. This use will meet the mission of the Refuge System by providing renewable 

resources for the benefit of the American public while conserving fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources on these islands. 

Refuge Manager: /Steven J. Lenz/ Date: 10/9/2012
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

127

Regional Chief: /Tom Worthington (Acting)/ Date: 12/10/2012

Mandatory 10-or 15-year Re-evaluations Date: 2027
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

128

Compatibility Determination

Use: Special Events (non-refuge sponsored)

Refuge Name: Green Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Door County

Green Bay NWR: Plum Island (325 acres), and Pilot Island (3.7 acres)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Plum and Pilot Islands were transferred from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service on October 17, 2007 under the authority of the Federal Land 

Management and Policy Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (2000).

Refuge Purpose:

Green Bay NWR: Plum and Pilot Islands: “ . . . to protect native and migratory bird habitat and 

endangered species habitat within the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem.” Public Land Order 7681, 

dated October 17, 2007. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The 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:

This use is for special events sponsored by charitable and other non-profit clubs or groups such 

as Friends of Plum and Pilot Islands. These events may include a guided hike or a lighthouse 

tour on Plum Island. Events may be held one to six times annually and occur at different times 

throughout the year. Events may have up to 100 participants, although generally less than 50. 

Participants will use the established boat dock and trails. 

Pilot Island may be open for special events (e.g., lighthouse tours) pending dock repairs. These 

events will occur after the nesting season to assure necessary protection of breeding birds and 

to avoid disruption to ongoing research activities currently being conducted on the Island.

Availability of Resources: 

These events generally involve staff time for meeting with sponsors, explaining refuge 

regulations, issuing a Special Use Permit, and providing some level of oversight during portions 

of the event. Existing staff are adequate to administer this use depending on number of 

requests received and the size and scope of the event. Since special events on Plum Island are 

held based on existing dock and trails, facilities are deemed adequate. However, future events 

may require additional dock and trail improvements prior to issuing Special Use Permits. The 

existing dock on Pilot Island is currently unsuitable for public access due to safety concerns. 

Sponsors are required to furnish any additional facilities needed, such as portable toilets. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: 
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

129

The short-term impact associated with these events is human disturbance to wildlife occupying 

habitat on the Islands. Most events will occur on established trails or areas that already support 

a moderate level of human activity. Wildlife that occupy habitat in these areas are accustomed 

to a higher degree of human disturbance. Any alteration of behavior or bird flight would be 

temporary and localized with wildlife quickly resuming normal activities. 

There will be some short-term impact to other visitors engaged in wildlife-dependent recreation 

during the event. Visitors not engaged in the event, will be permitted to continue their activity. 

With an increase of public use during events, an increase of litter is expected. Event 

coordinators will be required to clean the area when the event is complete. Clean-up events 

actually reduce litter and debris and thus have a positive impact on the visual character of the 

refuge. 

Other than the potential for some increase in future visitation to the refuge, no long-term impacts 

associated with these events are anticipated. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment, which was announced in the Federal Register and available for 

public comment for 30 days.

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Events must include an educational message that helps further the understanding of the 

purposes of the refuge and the mission of the Refuge System. 

2. Event sponsors will furnish complete information on event description, date, time, 

preferred location, number of participants, and logistics for health and safety, so that the 

manager can make a determination of best area and timing of events when issuing a 

Special Use Permit. Management reserves the right to deny any proposal that will cause 

an undue demand on staff or resources, is not related to a charitable or non-profit 

organization, or does not promote the goals of the campaign designed to get Americans 

outdoors and active on their public lands.

3. Events will be scheduled only at appropriate times of the year to avoid significant wildlife 

and visitor disturbance. Events will be scheduled on a first-come, first-served basis, with 

no more than one event in the same area and time. All activities will be limited to the 

designated routes on established trails. 

4. All activities associated with the event will be approved by refuge staff in advance of the 

event and will be located to avoid any sensitive sites (e.g., areas with high densities of 

foraging shorebirds, areas where waterbirds, waterfowl, raptors, or passerines are 

nesting, etc.) and to minimize disturbance to wildlife foraging/perching/loafing in adjacent 

wetlands and woodlands. 
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

130

5. Event sponsors will be required to set up and remove all materials necessary for the 

event. This requirement applies to any tables, chairs, displays, signs, traffic aids, litter 

receptacles, portable toilets, etc. needed. 

Justification: 

Disturbance to wildlife and habitat will be minimal since this use will occur on existing trails, be 

periodic, and relatively short duration. Wildlife disturbed will be displaced during the event, but 

should return to the areas affected quickly. Adjacent habitat is abundant for wildlife to use when 

disturbed. Stipulations in place will minimize disturbance, ensure control of the events, and 

contribute to the mission of the Refuge System by requiring an interpretive or environmental 

education component. This use will also expose large numbers of people to the refuge and help 

them gain a better understanding and appreciation of the refuge. These events are also 

consistent with the agency commitment to protecting and managing cultural resources in a spirit 

of stewardship for future generations to understand and enjoy. The number of events, and their 

size and scope, remains under the control of the Refuge Manager through the requirement of a 

Special Use Permit. 

Refuge Manager: /Steven J. Lenz/ Date: 10/9/2012

Regional Chief: /Tom Worthington (Acting)/ Date: 12/10/2012

Mandatory 10-or 15-year Re-evaluations Date: 2027
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

131

Compatibility Determination

Use: Research

Refuge Name: Gravel Island and Green Bay National Wildlife Refuges, Door County

Gravel Island NWR: Gravel Island (10 acres) and Spider Island (25 acres)

Green Bay NWR: Hog Island (2 acres), Plum Island (325 acres), and Pilot Island (3.7 acres)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Gravel, Spider, and Hog Islands were established by Executive Order No. 1678 of January 9, 

1913, and Executive Order No. 1487 of February 21, 1912, respectively. Public Law 91-504, 

October 23, 1970 designated the existing Green Bay and Gravel Island NWR as a Wilderness 

Area.

Plum and Pilot Islands were transferred from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service on October 17, 2007 under the authority of the Federal Land 

Management and Policy Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (2000).

Refuge Purpose:

Gravel Island NWR: “ . . . as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds.” Executive Order 

1678, dated January 9, 1913.

Green Bay NWR: Hog Island: “ . . . as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds.” 

Executive Order 1487, dated February 21, 1912.

Plum and Pilot Islands: “. . . to protect native and migratory bird habitat and endangered 

species habitat within the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem.” Public Land Order 7681, dated 

October 17, 2007. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The mission is to administer a national network of lands and water for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resource habitats 

within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

What is the use? The use is research projects conducted by universities and other academic 

institutions, government agencies such as the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and private conservation organizations. Research projects will

contribute to a better understanding of refuge wildlife and habitat resources, provide information 

to improve adaptive management decisions, and increase life history information on species of 

concern. 

Written research proposals will be required for review and approval before access will be 

allowed. If approved, access to the islands will be limited to the least invasive means required 

to accomplish the activities. Research will be carried out by professors, students, contractors, 
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

132

refuge staff, and volunteers. Research results will be used to assist refuge staff in making wise 

management decisions and to support adaptive management processes.

Several studies involving Double-crested Cormorants, Red-breasted Mergansers, and Blackcrowned Night-Herons have used Gravel Island and Green Bay NWRs as study sites. Activities 

have included sampling eggs, embryos, adults, and juveniles for various toxicants, counting 

nests, sampling blood for genetic purposes, and banding. 

The most recent study was initiated in 2001. Through banding and re-sighting efforts, 

researchers are trying to better understand the population of Double-crested Cormorants and its 

growth. The mark/recapture study is being conducted as a joint project with U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Wildlife Service’s researchers in order to obtain these critical data in this last 

remaining unmanaged segment of the population. The study continued through 2010.

Islands are valuable sites for biological research providing opportunities to study populations, 

island biogeography, predator-prey relations, and competition. Research opportunities may 

increase if the lifesaving station on Plum Island is renovated as a research facility/dormitory for 

island researchers. 

Where is the use conducted? The use could occur on any or all of the refuge islands and often 

on other islands not owned by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

How is the use conducted? Research may be conducted by foot, boat, canoe, kayak, and aerial 

methods. Marking of nests and individual animals may be required. The least invasive means 

required to accomplish objectives will be used. Housing is available offsite for use by 

researchers (RV trailer at local campground) but may include use of a dormitory directly on 

Plum Island in the future.

When would the use be conducted? Research projects may be conducted year round but 

usually occur from April–November.

Why is this use being proposed? Research and monitoring information is critical to making 

sound biological decisions in the restoration and management of ecosystems/landscapes for 

fish and wildlife communities occurring on national wildlife refuges. It is needed to measure the 

successes and failures of management efforts. This is an important use with long-term benefits 

that ensures we have the best information possible upon which to base management decisions.

Availability of Resources:

Some research and monitoring is funded by grants, other government agencies, and 

universities; or conducted by students and volunteers. Refuge staff involvement includes 

reviewing research proposals, supervising or monitoring research activities, reviewing reports, 

providing some equipment and vehicles, and occasionally participating in field work.

Staff time for development and/or review of research proposals/reports, administration of 

Special Use Permits, supervision of students and volunteers, maintenance of vehicles, 

specialized equipment, and housing is already available and committed.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

133

Research projects will be evaluated to determine whether the project is aligned with information 

needs of the island refuges and surrounding landscape. Only projects that benefit resource 

management will be approved to receive a permit or cooperative agreement.

Disturbance or removal of plants and wildlife would be a temporary impact. Re-population of the 

removed individuals would be expected to occur over time.

Some temporary dispersal of animals around or off the islands may occur from field activities.

Permit/Cooperative Agreements will be developed to eliminate or minimize impacts to other 

uses and management activities. Information collected from research project will assist the 

refuge manager in fine tuning management activities to maximize productivity of islands.

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment, which was announced in the Federal Register and available for 

public review.

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife Refuge System and Green Bay and Gravel Island 

NWR’s goals and objectives the activity can only occur under the following stipulations:

1. Researchers will submit a study proposal and designate specific area(s) on the islands 

where the activity is to occur.

2. Each project will be evaluated on its merits. All proposals will be reviewed for their 

potential benefits to future island management activities and potential impact(s) to 

current activities. Permits/Cooperative Agreements will only be issued to those projects 

that contribute to inventory, monitoring, management impacts, life history needs on 

species of concern, and information needs of the islands.

3. Coordination will be maintained with the Regional Refuge Wildlife Biologist.

4. A report must be submitted at the end of each field season and at the conclusion of the 

study.

5. Annually all ongoing activities and operations will be reviewed to ensure compliance with 

all applicable laws, regulations, and policies.

Justification:

This use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented. 

Research and monitoring information is critical to making sound biological decisions in the 

restoration and management of ecosystems/landscapes for fish and wildlife communities 
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

134

occurring on national wildlife refuges. It is needed to measure the successes and failures of 

management efforts. This is an important use with long-term benefits that ensures we have the 

best information possible upon which to base management decisions.

Refuge Manager: /Steven J. Lenz/ Date: 10/9/2012

Regional Chief: /Tom Worthington (Acting)/ Date: 12/10/2012

Mandatory 10-or 15-year Re-evaluations Date: 2022
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

135

Compatibility Determination

Uses: Commercially Guided Wildlife and Wildland Tours and Activities 

Refuge Name: Green Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Door County

Green Bay NWR: Plum Island (325 acres)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Plum Island was transferred from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service on October 17, 2007 under the authority of the Federal Land Management and 

Policy Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (2000).

Refuge Purpose:

Plum Island: “. . . to protect native and migratory bird habitat and endangered species habitat 

within the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem.” Public Land Order 7681, dated October 17, 2007. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The 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: 

This use involves environmental education activities, tours, and programs that are offered to the 

public for a fee and are conducted on refuge property. Activities provide recreational and 

educational opportunities for the paying public who desire a successful, quality experience but 

who may lack the necessary equipment, skills, or knowledge to observe wildlife or otherwise 

experience the diverse habitats of the refuge. The refuge refers to these uses as commercially 

guided wildlife and wildlands tours and activities, which may include the following: kayak tours, 

bird watching excursions, wildlife viewing or photography trips, lighthouse tours, nature 

programs, and environmental education field outings. This determination is not addressing any 

new use; the activities listed above are permitted activities compatible with the refuge mission. 

Rather, this review looks at the compatibility of an economic use of the refuge, how it will impact 

the resource, and how it will be administered consistently in conjunction with other permitted 

uses. The commercial uses are covered generally in this determination, with the intent that the 

accompanying Special Use Permit will include more specific stipulations, conditions, and 

requirements.

Guiding operations will generally be allowed on established trails Memorial Day to Labor Day, 

daylight hours only. Access will be handled on a case-by-case basis within areas that are 

designated closed or restricted or areas within the vicinity of sensitive bird areas such as 

nesting sites. Administration of commercially guided wildlife/wildland activities will be conducted 

in accordance with commercial guide use stipulations (see attached). These conditions were 

developed to ensure consistency throughout the refuge; provide a safe, quality experience,

protect resources, and to ensure compliance with pertinent Refuge System regulations and 

policies. The special use stipulations will address the number of permits to be issued, guide 

qualifications, permit cost, and selection methods. Commercial Guide Use conditions will take 
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

136

into account the distribution of guides and public opportunity and address sensitive wildlife 

areas or other considerations. 

Availability of Resources: 

This program will increase overall costs of refuge operations, including but not limited to, 

development and review of policy and procedure, yearly administration of permits (inquiries, 

screening and selecting applicants, issuing permits), and enforcement of permit conditions. The

size and scope of the guiding program, and the number of permits that will be available, will 

have to be limited and be in balance with staff availability. In the long-term, a comprehensive 

guiding program, when combined with other new initiatives requiring permits, may require 

additional administrative and/or other personnel time. Existing facilities (boat docks, trails, 

sanitary facilities, etc.) and other infrastructure are currently insufficient to accommodate this 

use. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Disturbance of wildlife is the primary concern regarding this use. Increased use could cause 

disturbance to waterfowl, nesting passerines, Bald Eagles, and other wildlife. While field trip 

routes and observation sites are located in areas open to the general public, disturbance 

caused by group tours could be more intense, because the number of people may be greater 

than normally occurs during general public activities. This disturbance may displace individual 

animals to adjacent areas of the refuge. However, the level of disturbance, through control of 

areas used and seasons of use, should limit the disturbance during critical feeding, resting, and 

breeding periods and not measurably affect overall refuge populations. 

There is also a concern for habitat degradation through the potential for increased potential for 

invasive species introductions. Limits placed on the number and size of tours as well as launch 

locations will be established and/or adjusted in response to evidence of habitat degradation. 

Guided tour activities may also conflict with other refuge users. For example, commercial tours 

will most likely use the same areas as the independent wildlife viewer, kayakers, and boaters 

during open seasons. Unregulated or inadequately regulated commercial guiding operations 

may adversely affect the safety of refuge users, the quality of their experience, and the equity of 

opportunity. Stipulations proposed were developed to mitigate these concerns by coordinating 

schedules and implementing volume and space restraints for commercial operators. Guide 

operations may increase use of some refuge facilities, such as boat docks, but, if regulated, this 

increase would not be significant compared to overall use.

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Commercially Guided Wildlife and Wildlands Tours and Activities Special Use Permit 

Stipulations on Green Bay National Wildlife Refuge.
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

137

Commercial activities refer to activities that provide educational and recreational opportunities 

for the paying public who desire a successful, quality experience but who may lack the 

necessary equipment, skills, or knowledge to observe wildlife or otherwise experience the 

diverse habitats of the refuge. Commercially guided wildlife and wildlands tours and activities 

may include the following: kayak tours, bird watching excursions, wildlife viewing or photography 

trips, nature programs, lighthouse tours, and environmental education field outings. 

The Refuge Manager will designate “Commercial Wildlife Observation Guide Use Areas” within 

the refuge. In most cases this will include the dock and trails within the refuge except those 

areas that are closed or subject to seasonal closures because of hunting and sensitive bird 

areas such as rookeries and bald eagle nests. The Refuge Manager may as necessary 

establish a maximum number of guides that will be allowed to operate within the refuge. The 

number of tours may also be limited as necessary to reduce unforeseen conflict between user 

groups or disturbance to wildlife and habitats. 

Qualified individuals may apply to use the refuge. If the maximum number of guides exceeds 

the recommended allowance for the area, guides will be selected by random drawing for a 

Special Use Permit valid for up to one year.

Administrative and permit fee will be $200, non-refundable. These fees will be established as 

the initial program fees until the number of participants and earned revenues can be 

determined. 

Administration of these activities will be conducted in accordance with the following stipulations,

which were developed to ensure consistency throughout the refuge: provide a safe, quality 

experience; protect resources; and to ensure compliance with pertinent Refuge System 

regulations and policies. 

1. Permittee(s), designated representatives, and associates will comply with all the refuge 

regulations and conditions of the Special Use Permit as provided by the refuge manager. 

2. Instructors and guides will provide proof of insurance as established by the refuge 

including minimum coverage for general liability and comprehensive for all operations; 

and possess a current CPR and First Aid training certificate issued by a recognized 

national organization. 

3. The permittee will be liable for all personal injuries, loss of life, and damage and/or loss 

to personal and public property, which are incurred by or caused by employees or clients 

during tours or activities on the refuge. 

4. The permittee will be responsible for all infractions of refuge special regulations and 

Code of Federal Regulations Title 50 Subparts C, pertaining to National Wildlife 

Refuges. 

5. The refuge reserves the right to change fees, regulations and/or restrictions or terminate 

the permit during the effective period following consultation with the permittee. 

6. The permittee will disclose, during all trips, tours, activities that this area is part of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at 

Green Bay NWR. 

7. Refuge staff has the right to accompany any tour, program, or activity, with proper 

notice, as a non-paying observer. 
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

138

8. Permittees may be assisted by any number of individuals. Assistants must be 

named/authorized on the permit issued and possess the applicable state licenses and/or 

registration to perform the duties conducted. 

9. The permittee will provide the refuge with a proposed schedule, including times, dates 

and locations, of all programs/tours/activities at least 30 days prior to conducting those 

activities on the refuge. 

10. The permittee is responsible for accurate record keeping and will provide the issuing 

refuge office an annual summary of activity by January 15 of each year; the following 

information will be included: 

a. Fee schedule for the year (charge per individual) 

b. Number of guided tours/activities/programs conducted on the refuge 

c. Number of individuals that participated in tours/activities/programs 

d. Date of each trip 

e. Location of each trip, or general area of activity 

f. Individual names and description of duties for all additional staff who assisted 

with a trip on the refuge. 

11. All vessels used in guide operations shall be marked with a guide identifier as required 

by the refuge. All boats are to be equipped and operated in accordance with Wisconsin 

and USCG boating regulations, including possessing a current Wisconsin registration. 

12. The Special Use Permit and the privileges granted herein may be revoked by the issuing 

refuge office at any time for failure to comply with the permit conditions or other federal 

or state law. 

Justification: 

In accordance with the missions of the National Wildlife Refuge System, Green Bay NWR and 

the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act, this use has been determined compatible provided the 

above stipulations are implemented. This use will promote public awareness and stewardship of 

the refuges’ natural and cultural resources. It does not materially interfere with or detract from 

the Service's ability to meet the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System because: 

1. Existing federal and state agency oversight and regulation of affected species and 

habitat is sufficient to ensure healthy populations. Disturbance to fish and wildlife will be 

local, short-term, and not adversely impact overall populations. 

2. There are adequate state and federal enforcement officials to enforce state and federal 

regulations. 

3. Restricting the number of guides and managing how and where guided activities are 

conducted will reduce adverse habitat effects, conflicts between competing guide 

services, and conflicts between guided operations and other refuge users. 

4. Designated areas of operation (Guide Use Areas), operating requirements, and other 

regulation of guided activities will minimize conflicts with other refuge users. 

5. Administrative and Special Use Permit fees will help off-set costs to administer and 

provide oversight to this use.
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

139

6. Regulating and limiting the number of commercial operators as stated in the Special Use 

Permit stipulations will provide a safe, quality experience to individuals who want to 

enjoy the resources of the refuge. It will also increase opportunities for those who wish to 

observe wildlife and experience the scenic and wild nature of the refuge but may lack the 

required equipment, knowledge, or expertise. 

Refuge Manager: /Steven J. Lenz/ Date: 10/9/2012

Regional Chief: /Tom Worthington (Acting)/ Date: 12/10/2012

Mandatory 10-or 15-year Re-evaluations Date: 2027
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

140

Harbor Island NWR

Compatibility Determination

Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation

Refuge Name: Harbor Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Harbor Island was purchased from The Nature Conservancy in December 1983 as part of the 

Unique Ecosystem Program and waterfowl production area under authority of the Fish and 

Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j).

Refuge Purpose:

“ . . . conservation, management, and restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and 

their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . . " 16 U.S.C. n 

668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The mission is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. 

Description of Use:

What is the use? Environmental education would consist of public outreach and onsite activities 

conducted by refuge staff, volunteers, teachers, and university professors. Interpretation occurs 

in less formal activities with refuge staff and volunteers or through exhibits, signs, and 

brochures. 

Where is the use conducted? Environmental education and interpretation activities may occur 

throughout the refuge, but are most likely to occur on or around the main harbor, which is well 

protected and provides abundant opportunities for boats to anchor or nose into shore. The 

refuge is located in Potagannissing Bay in Lake Huron, approximately 3 miles off Drummond 

Island and approximately 10 miles, via boat, from the Detour Village boat ramp. During the 

winter this area of the lake is normally frozen, and access to the island would only be via snow 

machine. Currently the refuge is not staffed. We estimate the refuge receives a about 200 

visitors per year, although we don’t have good documentation. As mentioned above, the refuge 

contains a very protected harbor with good anchoring that is utilized for the primary purpose of 

getting out of the weather or anchoring for the night. Environmental education and interpretation 

may occur on the refuge or offsite. Currently, there are no self-guided interpretive services on 

the island, just informational and regulatory signs. Onsite guided services may be provided 

although extensive logistical coordination would have to occur and would be dependent on 

weather and lake conditions. Local school districts are located approximately two–three hours 

away by vehicle. Programs would be given at schools upon request. Programs would be given 

upon request onsite at the refuge, although extensive logistical coordination would have to 
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

141

occur and would be dependent on weather and the lake condition. Offsite activities consist of 

teacher workshops, participation in special events, and the sharing of wildlife education trunks. 

When is the use conducted? Interpretation occurs throughout the year, whenever a visitor reads 

a sign, brochure, or the refuge website. Environmental education activities would primarily occur 

during the school year but can occur at any time. Most activities occur during daylight hours. 

How is the use conducted? All environmental education and interpretation activities are 

conducted with the refuge's primary goals, objectives, and habitat management requirements as 

the guiding principles. Activities done under these restrictions allow the refuge to accomplish its 

management goals and provide for the safety of visitors. All programs include a description of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge System. All of the programs address at least 

one of a number of wildlife conservation issues such as management, watershed, habitat, 

wildlife, endangered species, invasive species, etc. 

Why is the use being proposed? Permitting this activity is consistent with the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act (1997), helps accomplish refuge goals and objectives, and 

promotes understanding, appreciation and support for our mission. 

Availability of Resources:

Harbor Island National Wildlife Refuge is managed out of the Seney National Wildlife Refuge 

office along with two other remote island refuge units: the remote Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife 

Management Area and a remote subunit, Whitefish Point. Currently, we have one full-time 

Visitor Service Manager and a career seasonal Park Ranger to lead the interpretive and 

environmental education program. With current staff, opportunities exist to improve the 

interpretive program at Harbor Island NWR with development of interpretive signs and kiosks to 

be located on the refuge. Also with current staff, limited environmental educational activities 

could be conducted at local school districts. An additional public use staff dedicated to our three 

remote island refuges would be needed in order to begin to provide a more adequate 

environmental education program at local school districts plus education efforts on the island 

and refuge led interpretive activities on the Island. Approximately $100,000 would be needed to 

begin to adequately administer this program. 

Trained volunteers and interns provide an integral part of the Seney National Wildlife Refuge's 

environmental education and interpretation program. All the interns and most of the volunteers 

are based in the Seney NWR area. Additional local volunteers may be available with the 

formation of a Harbor Island Friends Group, currently being considered by local entities. 

Every effort is made to meet each request for environmental education and interpretive 

programs. However, staff, funding, and the location of the refuge have curtailed programs. Due 

to logistical challenges, the Environmental Education and Interpretive (staff led) programs 

actually occurring on the island will always be very limited. Based on a review of the current 

Complex budget, there is sufficient funding to administer this program at its limited current level 

and ensure compatibility with the purpose for which Harbor Island National Wildlife Refuge was 

established. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Environmental education and interpretation are not expected to have measurable environmental 

impacts on the refuge, its habitats, or wildlife species. Disturbance to wildlife is limited to 
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

142

occasional incidents such as flushing wildlife. Restrictions on locations for environmental 

education and interpretation and the numbers of users will assure minimal disturbance to wildlife 

and other public use activities. 

The activities follow all applicable laws, regulations, and policies including Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act, Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations, National Wildlife Refuge System 

Manual, National Wildlife Refuge System goals and objectives, and Harbor Island NWR goals 

and objectives. These activities comply with the purpose of the refuge and the National Wildlife 

Refuge System mission. Operating these activities does not alter the refuge's ability to meet 

habitat goals, and it helps support several of the primary objectives of the refuge. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment, which was announced in the Federal Register and available for 

public comment for 30 days. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife Refuge System and Harbor Island National 

Wildlife Refuge goals and objectives, environmental education and interpretation can only occur 

under the following stipulation: 

Environmental education and interpretation activities will occur only when and where they pose 

little or no threat to wildlife. The impacts of any activity that occurs will be evaluated for its 

impacts on wildlife. All activities will occur under the guidance of a refuge staff member, 

volunteer or trained teacher to assure minimal disturbance to wildlife, minimal vegetation 

damage, and minimal user conflict between other public uses. 

Justification:

Environmental education and interpretation are priority public uses for the National Wildlife 

Refuge System as outlined in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.By 

facilitating these uses on the refuge, we will increase visitors' knowledge and appreciation of 

fish and wildlife and their habitats, which will lead to increased public stewardship of fish and 

wildlife and their habitats on 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. 

Refuge Manager: /Mark Vaniman/ Date: 10/9/2012

Regional Chief: /Tom Worthington (Acting)/ Date: 12/10/2012

Mandatory 10-or 15-year Re-evaluations Date: 2027
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

143

Compatibility Determination

Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography (including means of access) 

Refuge Name: Harbor Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Harbor Island was purchased from The Nature Conservancy in December 1983 as part of the 

Unique Ecosystem Program and waterfowl production area under authority of the Fish and 

Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j).

Refuge Purpose:

“(for the) . . . conservation, management, and restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . . " 

16 U.S.C. n 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The mission is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. 

Description of Use: 

What is the use? General public access to observe and/or photograph wildlife and refuge 

habitats including the means of access such as boat and then hiking, skiing, or snowshoeing on 

the island. Under the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, wildlife observation 

and photography are priority public uses. 

Where is the use conducted? These activities could take place anywhere on the refuge but most 

often occur along the two main harbors at the southern end of the island or anywhere along the 

perimeter. Currently, the refuge does not contain any type of designated trail.

When is the use conducted? The easiest/safest access to the refuge is via a boat, which 

normally can occur from March–November. If ice has formed on the lake, access to the island 

could occur via snow machine. Most wildlife observation and photography are most likely to 

occur from May–September; however, they could occur at any time of the year, but only during 

daylight hours. 

How is the use conducted? All wildlife observation and photography activities will be conducted 

with the refuge's goals, objectives, and management plans as the guiding principles. Activities 

pursued under these restrictions allow the refuge to accomplish its goals and objectives and 

provide for the safety of visitors. Entry on all or portions of individual areas may be temporarily 

suspended due to unusual or critical conditions affecting land, water, vegetation, wildlife or 

public safety. 

Why is the use being proposed? Wildlife observation and photography are priority public uses 

on National Wildlife Refuge System lands as identified in the National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

144

Improvement Act of 1997. Allowing access to the refuge for wildlife observation and 

photography is consistent with goals of the refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Availability of Resources:

Approximately $2,000 is required to maintain refuge signs and to cover logistics to annually get 

to the island. Currently, with the assistance of the volunteers and the Seney Natural History 

Association, there is enough staffing and funding available to administer these activities. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Wildlife observation and photography can cause minor disturbance to wildlife especially during 

nesting seasons. In areas where people travel off trails, the impact on wildlife is normally 

minimal and temporary. The more significant impact can be the vegetation, but even this is 

dispersed and infrequent. 

Wildlife observation and photography are priority public uses listed in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act. By facilitating these uses on the refuge, we will increase 

visitors' knowledge and appreciation of fish and wildlife and their habitats, which will lead to 

increased public stewardship of fish and wildlife and their habitats on the refuge and beyond. 

Increased public stewardship will support and complement Service actions in achieving refuge 

purposes and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment, which was announced in the Federal Register and available for 

public comment for 30 days. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife Refuge System and Harbor Island NWR goals and 

objectives, wildlife observation and photography can only occur under the following stipulation: 

1. The refuge is closed from sunset until sunrise, 

2. All motorized vehicles are prohibited. 

Justification:

This use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented. It 

promotes public stewardship of natural resources and helps the refuge meet its goals and 

objectives. It does not materially interfere with or detract from the Service’s ability to meet the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

145

The activities follow all applicable laws, regulations, and policies, including: Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act, Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations, National Wildlife Refuge System 

Manual, National Wildlife Refuge System goals and objectives, and Refuge goals and 

objectives. These activities are compliant with the purpose of the refuge and the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Mission. Operating this activity does not alter the refuge's ability to meet 

habitat goals and it helps support several of the primary objectives of the refuge.

Refuge Manager: /Mark Vaniman/ Date: 10/9/2012

Regional Chief: /Tom Worthington (Acting)/ Date: 12/10/2012

Mandatory 10-or 15-year Re-evaluations Date: 2027
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

146

Compatibility Determination

Use: Hunting

Refuge Name: Harbor Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Harbor Island was purchased from The Nature Conservancy in December 1983 as part of the 

Unique Ecosystem Program and waterfowl production area under authority of the Fish and 

Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j).

Refuge Purpose:

“ . . . conservation, management, and restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and 

their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . . " 16 U.S.C. n 

668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The mission is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. 

Description of Use:

What is the use? The use is the hunting of game as an activity conducted by the general public 

under regulation authority of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (1997) and 

the National Wildlife Refuge System. Hunting is currently allowed for big game. These hunts 

are conducted in accordance with State of Michigan regulations. 

Where is the use conducted? The entire island is open to the hunting of white-tailed deer and 

black bear under state regulations.

When is the use conducted? Hunting is allowed during state seasons, generally from early 

September through the end of December each year.

How is the use conducted? Hunting is conducted under State of Michigan and refuge-specific 

regulations.

Why is the use being proposed? Hunting is identified as a priority public use in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and has traditionally occurred on Harbor 

Island without adverse impacts to the purpose for which the refuge was established. The hunt 

program is administered in accordance with sound wildlife management principles and the 

utmost concern for public safety.

Availability of Resources:

Based on a review of the refuge budget and current staffing levels, resources are adequate to 

administer this program to ensure compatibility with the purpose for which the refuge was 

established.
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

147

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

The activity follows all applicable laws, regulations, and policies including Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act, Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations, National Wildlife Refuge System 

Manual, National Wildlife Refuge System goals and objectives, and Harbor Island NWR goals 

and objectives. These activities comply with the purpose of the refuge and the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Mission. Operating these activities does not alter the refuge's ability to meet 

habitat goals and it helps support several of the primary objectives of the refuge. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment, which was announced in the Federal Register and available for 

public comment for 30 days. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife Refuge System and Harbor Island NWR goals and 

objectives, hunting can only occur under the following stipulations:

1. State and/or tribal hunting regulations apply to all hunting on Harbor Island.

2. Refuge-specific regulations apply as follows:

o baiting or the use of bait is prohibited

o the use of dogs to hunt black bear is prohibited

o no motorized vehicles are permitted on the island

o no camping or open fires

3. All hunting activities will be reviewed annually to ensure compliance with all applicable 

laws, regulations, and policies.

Justification:

This use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented. 

This use is being permitted as it is a priority public use and will not detract from the primary 

purposes of the refuge. This use will meet the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

by providing renewable resources for the benefit of the American public while conserving fish, 

wildlife, and plant resources on these lands.
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

148

Refuge Manager: /Mark Vaniman/ Date: 10/9/2012

Regional Chief: /Tom Worthington (Acting)/ Date: 12/10/2012

Mandatory 10-or 15-year Re-evaluations Date: 2027
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

149

Compatibility Determination

Use: Mushroom and Berry Picking

Refuge Name: Harbor Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Harbor Island was purchased from The Nature Conservancy in December 1983 as part of the 

Unique Ecosystem Program and waterfowl production area under authority of the Fish and 

Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j).

Refuge Purpose:

“ . . . conservation, management, and restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and 

their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . ." 16 U.S.C. n 

668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The mission is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. 

Description of Use:

What is the use? Non-commercial harvest of berries and mushrooms for human consumption, 

primarily blueberries and morel mushrooms.

Where is the use conducted? These activities may occur throughout the entire 694 acres of the 

Harbor Island NWR. 

When is the use conducted? Mushroom and berry picking can occur throughout the spring, 

summer, and fall. Activity is normally concentrated during the few weeks that fruit is ripe. This 

activity most likely occurs on the refuge incidental to other activities.

How is the use conducted? This is an activity that is often done in conjunction with other 

activities that are wildlife-dependent, such as wildlife observation and photography. Visitors 

typically walk the upland portions of the refuge and harvest opportunistically. All harvesting is 

done by hand.

Why is the use being proposed? Permitting this activity is consistent with the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act, helps accomplish refuge goals, and promotes understanding, 

appreciation and support for its mission. Wild food gathering is a traditional family activity 

allowing visitors to collect wholesome, natural foods while enjoying the refuge.

Availability of Resources:

Harbor Island NWR is managed out of the Seney NWR office along with two other remote island 

refuge units: the remote Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area and a remote subunit, 
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

150

Whitefish Point. There is little or no cost to administer this program. It occurs coincidentally 

with other activities and participation is minimal.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Low use will limit disturbance to wildlife, and harvest amounts are expected to be insignificant in 

affecting this wildlife food source. This activity should not result in short-term, long-term, or 

cumulative impacts that adversely affect the purpose of the refuge or the mission of the National 

Wildlife System. The activities follow all applicable laws, regulations and policies including 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act, Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations, National Wildlife Refuge 

System Manual, National Wildlife Refuge System goals and objectives, and Harbor Island NWR 

goals and objectives. These activities comply with the purpose of the refuge and the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Mission. Operating these activities does not alter the refuge's ability to 

meet habitat goals, and it helps support several of the primary objectives of the refuge. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife Refuge System and Harbor Island NWR goals and 

objectives, all users must comply with refuge-specific regulations.

Justification:

This use has little impact to wildlife or habitat since it is recreational in nature and few people 

participate. A very small percentage of available fruit is harvested so no appreciable effect on 

wildlife mast is anticipated. This activity provides hours of enjoyable recreation and promotes a 

positive image of the refuge.

Refuge Manager: /Mark Vaniman/ Date: 10/9/2012

Regional Chief: /Tom Worthington (Acting)/ Date: 12/10/2012

Mandatory 10-or 15-year Re-evaluations Date: 2022
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

151

Huron NWR

Compatibility Determination

Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography (including means of access) 

Refuge Name: Huron National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Huron Islands Reservation was originally established by Executive Order dated October 10, 

1905. Executive Order 7795, dated January 12, 1938 revoked the executive order from 1905 

and established Huron Migratory Bird Refuge.

Refuge Purpose:

" . . . as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife . . . " 16 U.S.C. 71 

5d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act).

“ . . . conservation, management, and restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and 

their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . . " 16 U.S.C. n 

668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act).

Designated wilderness in 1970 to ” . . . secure for the American people of present and future 

generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness" Public Law 91-504, October 23, 

1970 (Huron NWR, Scarecrow, Pismire, and Shoe Islands). 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The mission is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. 

Description of Use: 

What is the use? General public access to observe and/or photograph wildlife and refuge

habitats including the means of access such as boat or snow machine and then hiking or 

snowshoeing on the refuge. Under the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act, of 1997, 

wildlife observation and photography are priority public uses. 

Where is the use conducted? Huron National Wildlife Refuge is comprised of eight islands. 

West Huron, or Lighthouse Island, is the only island in the archipelago open to the public and 

has a dock available for visitor use. On West Huron Island, there is an established trail leading 

from the boat dock up to the lighthouse area. Another trail leads north from the lighthouse area 

to the north end of the island where an old fog horn building is located. People can readily 

branch out from the trail and explore other parts of the island.

When is the use conducted? The easiest/safest access to the refuge is via a boat, which 

normally can occur from March–November. If ice has formed on the lake, access to the island 

could occur via snow machine. Wildlife observation and photography are most likely to occur 
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

152

from May–September; however, these activities may occur at any time of the year, but are only 

permitted during daylight hours. 

How is the use conducted? All wildlife observation and photography activities will be conducted 

with the refuge's goals, objectives, and management plans as the guiding principles. Activities 

pursued under these restrictions allow the refuge to accomplish its objectives and provide for 

the safety of visitors. Entry on all or portions of individual areas may be temporarily suspended 

due to unusual or critical conditions affecting land, water, vegetation, wildlife or public safety. 

Why is the use being proposed? Wildlife observation and photography are priority public uses 

on National Wildlife Refuge System Lands as identified in the National Wildlife Refuge 

Improvement Act of 1997. Allowing access to the refuge for wildlife observation and 

photography is consistent with goals of the refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Availability of Resources: 

Approximately $2,000 is required to maintain refuge signs and to cover logistics to annually get 

to the island. Currently, with the assistance of the volunteers and the Seney Natural History 

Association, there is enough staffing and funding available to administer these activities. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Wildlife observation and photography can cause minor disturbance to wildlife especially during 

nesting seasons. In areas where people travel off trails, the impact on wildlife is normally 

minimal and temporary. Vegetation may be impacted due to foot travel but affects should be 

minimal due to limited visitation. 

Wildlife observation and photography are priority public uses listed in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act. By facilitating these uses 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 on the refuge and beyond. Increased public 

stewardship will support and complement Service actions in achieving refuge purposes and the 

mission of the Refuge System. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment, which was announced in the Federal Register and available for 

public comment for 30 days. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife Refuge System and Huron National Wildlife 

Refuge goals and objectives, wildlife observation and photography can only occur under the 

following stipulation: 
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

153

1. The refuge is closed from sunset until sunrise, 

Justification:

This use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented. It 

promotes public stewardship of natural resources and helps the refuge meet its goals and 

objectives. It does not materially interfere with or detract from the Service’s ability to meet the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

The activities follow all applicable laws, regulations, and policies, including Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act, Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations, National Wildlife Refuge System 

Manual, National Wildlife Refuge System goals and objectives, and refuge goals and objectives. 

These activities are compliant with the purpose of the refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Mission. Operating this activity does not alter the refuge's ability to meet habitat goals 

and it helps support several of the primary objectives of the refuge.

Refuge Manager: /Mark Vaniman/ Date: 10/9/2012

Regional Chief: /Tom Worthington (Acting)/ Date: 12/10/2012

Mandatory 10-or 15-year Re-evaluations Date: 2027
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

154

Compatibility Determination

Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Refuge Name: Huron National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Migratory Bird Conservation Act 16 U.S.C & 7 15d 

Refuge Purpose:

Huron Island Bird Reservation was established in 1905 " . . . as a refuge and breeding ground 

for migratory birds and other wildlife . . ." 

Executive Order 7795, dated January 12, 1938 revoked the executive order from 1905 and 

established Huron Migratory Bird Refuge.

" . . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds." 16 U.S.C. 71 5d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act).

“ . . . conservation, management, and restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and 

their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . . " 16 U.S.C. n 

668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act).

Designated wilderness in 1970 to ” . . . secure for the American people of present and future 

generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness" Public Law 91-504, October 23, 

1970 (Huron NWR, Scarecrow, Pismire, and Shoe Islands).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. 

Description of Use: 

What is the use? Environmental education would consist of public outreach and onsite activities 

conducted by refuge staff, volunteers, teachers, and university professors. Interpretation occurs 

in less formal activities with refuge staff and volunteers or through exhibits, signs, and 

brochures. 

Where is the use conducted? Environmental education and interpretation activities may occur 

throughout the refuge, but are most likely to occur on West Huron (Lighthouse) Island. West 

Huron Island features buildings from an old USCG station and has a dock, which provides easy 

access to the Island. The other seven islands in the refuge are not open to the public except by 

Special Use Permit. The refuge is located three miles off the south shore of Lake Superior and 

is inaccessible during the winter. Programs would be given upon request onsite although 

extensive logistical coordination would have to occur and would be dependent on weather and 

the lake condition. 
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

155

When is the use conducted? Interpretation occurs throughout the year, whenever a visitor reads 

a sign, brochure, or the refuge website. Environmental education activities are concentrated in 

the summer months but can occur at any time. Most activities occur during daylight hours. 

How is the use conducted? All environmental education and interpretation activities are 

conducted with the refuge's primary goals, objectives, and habitat management requirements as 

the guiding principles. Activities done under these restrictions allow the refuge to accomplish its 

management goals and provide for the safety of visitors. All programs include a description of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge System. All of the programs address at least 

one of a number of wildlife conservation issues such as management, watershed, habitat, 

wildlife, endangered species, invasive species, etc. 

Why is the use being proposed? Permitting this activity is consistent with the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act, helps accomplish refuge goals, and promotes understanding, 

appreciation and support for its mission. 

Availability of Resources:

Huron NWR is managed out of the Seney NWR office along with two other remote island refuge 

units: the remote Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area and a remote subunit, Whitefish 

Point. Currently, we have one full-time Visitor Service Manager and a career seasonal Park 

Ranger to lead the interpretive and environmental education program. With current staff, 

opportunities exist to improve the interpretive program at Huron NWR with development of 

interpretive signs and kiosks to be located on the refuge. Approximately $100,000 would be 

needed to begin to adequately administer this program. 

Trained volunteers and interns provide an integral part of the refuge's environmental education 

and interpretation program. All the interns and most of the volunteers are based in the Seney 

NWR area. The refuge does have a Friend’s Group, Huron Island Lighthouse Preservation 

Association based out of L’Anse, which could be a local base for volunteers to help with 

environmental education and/or interpretive activities. 

Every effort is made to meet each request for environmental education and interpretive 

programs. However, staff, funding, and the location of the refuge have curtailed programs. Due 

to logistical challenges, the Environmental Education and Interpretive (staff led) programs 

actually occurring on the island will always be very limited. Based on a review of the current 

Complex budget, there is sufficient funding to administer this program at its limited current level 

and ensure compatibility with the purpose for which Huron National Wildlife Refuge was 

established. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Environmental education and interpretation are not expected to have measurable environmental 

impacts on the refuge, its habitats, or wildlife species. Disturbance to wildlife is limited to 

occasional incidents such as flushing wildlife. Restrictions on locations for environmental 

education and interpretation and the numbers of users will assure minimal disturbance to wildlife 

and other public use activities. 

The activities follow all applicable laws, regulations, and policies including Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act, Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations, National Wildlife Refuge System 

Manual, National Wildlife Refuge System goals and objectives, and Huron NWR goals and 
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

156

objectives. These activities comply with the purpose of the refuge and the National Wildlife 

Refuge System mission. Operating these activities does not alter the refuge's ability to meet 

habitat goals, and it helps support several of the primary objectives of the refuge. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment, which was announced in the Federal Register and available for 

public comment for 30 days. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife Refuge System and Huron NWR goals and 

objectives, environmental education and interpretation can only occur under the following 

stipulation: 

Environmental education and interpretation activities will occur only when and where they pose 

little or no threat to wildlife. The impacts of any activity that occurs outside of designated public 

use areas will be evaluated for its impacts on wildlife. All activities will occur under the guidance 

of a refuge staff member, volunteer, or trained teacher to assure minimal disturbance to wildlife, 

minimal vegetation damage, and minimal user conflict between other public uses. 

Justification:

Environmental education and interpretation are priority public uses for the National Wildlife 

Refuge System as outlined in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. By 

facilitating these uses 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 on 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. 

Refuge Manager: /Mark Vaniman/ Date: 10/9/2012

Regional Chief: /Tom Worthington (Acting)/ Date: 12/10/2012

Mandatory 10-or 15-year Re-evaluations Date: 2027
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

157

Michigan Islands NWR

Compatibility Determination

Uses: Priority Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses (Hunting, Fishing, Wildlife Observation and 

Photography, Environmental Education and Interpretation) on Scarecrow, Thunder Bay, Sugar, 

Big Charity and Little Charity Islands

Refuge Name: Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

Michigan Islands NWR was established by Executive Order in 1943. Scarecrow Island was one 

of the first islands acquired. Thunder Bay Island in was added in 1965 by a USCG/Fish and 

Wildlife Service agreement. The USCG ceded Lake Michigan’s Gull Island to the Service in 

1969. Big and Little Charity Islands in Lake Huron’s Saginaw Bay were added to Michigan 

Islands NWR in 1999 via Natural Resource Damage Assessment. Sugar Island in Thunder Bay 

was added to the refuge in 2010 in partnership with The Nature Conservancy.

Refuge Purpose: 

The primary purpose of Michigan Islands NWR is to serve “. . . as a refuge and breeding 

ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.” Scarecrow and Little Charity Islands provide 

habitat for colonial nesting birds, including Herrings and Ring-billed Gulls, Double-crested 

Cormorants, Great Blue Herons, Black-crowned Night-Herons, Great Egrets, and Common and 

Caspian Terns. Thunder Bay Island historically harbored large colonies of waterbirds, which,

hopefully, will return. All of these islands provide valuable stopover habitat for migrant 

waterfowl, shorebirds, and songbirds.

Scarecrow Island was designated as wilderness under Public Law 91-504, October 23, 1970. 

This island is one of three within the Michigan Island Wilderness, which is part of the National 

Wilderness Preservation System.

In 2000, Scarecrow and Thunder Bay Islands were designated a part of the Thunder Bay 

National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve. The designation gives federal protection 

to more than 100 well-preserved shipwrecks that litter the bottom of Thunder Bay, located near 

Alpena, MI. Once part of a major shipping channel, this 448 square-mile sanctuary is the first 

national marine sanctuary in fresh water and is located in an area that was known as 

“Shipwreck Alley” in the 1800s.

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission is 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.

Description of Uses: 
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

158

Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and 

interpretation are priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses, as defined by the National 

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

System Improvement Act of 1997). However, Scarecrow, Thunder Bay, Sugar, Big Charity, and 

Little Charity Islands are currently closed to the public and none of these uses have been 

permitted.

There is little public demand to access Little Charity, Scarecrow, Thunder Bay, and Sugar 

Islands. Most of the demand is from local residents and vacationers that are curious to explore 

the island and its shores during the summer. Occasionally anglers beach on the shoreline, and 

waterfowlers hunt from the islands.

All of these islands are surrounded by treacherous waters. These waters are shallow and 

littered with large boulders and shallow reefs. Consequently, the islands are only accessible to 

boaters that are very experienced with the underwater terrain and have small vessels. 

Navigating these waters is not safe for the inexperienced boater.

Thunder Bay Island is currently owned by the USCG. The Service manages most of the island 

as part of Michigan Islands NWR under permits and agreements. The USCG does not allow 

public access to the island.

Most of the demand for island access occurs at Big Charity Island. A private enterprise owns 

the former lighthouse keeper’s quarters and gives tours to several thousand people annually. 

These visitors must travel through Service lands as part of the tour. However, the enterprise 

owns an ingress and egress right-of-way through these lands, which tour members use.

Availability of Resources: 

Significant additional resources would be needed to manage a public use program and facilitate 

these uses on the islands. Currently, these islands are unfunded, unstaffed, and managed as a 

satellite refuge via Shiawassee NWR in Saginaw, MI. Investment of several hundred thousand 

dollars would be necessary to provide safe mooring, restroom facilities, signage, and 

information materials. A similar investment would be required in visitor services, management, 

and law enforcement staffing.

Anticipated Impacts of the Uses: 

Impacts resulting from these uses could be significant. Scarecrow and Little Charity Islands 

harbor large colonies of nesting waterbirds. Bald Eagles nest at Big Charity and Sugar Islands. 

All of these birds are very sensitive to disturbance during the nesting season and are known to 

abandon nest sites because of human interference. These islands are currently closed to the 

public to prevent this disturbance.

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was included in the refuge's Draft Environmental Assessment 

and Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The public had an opportunity to review and comment 

on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and this compatibility determination during a 90 

day comment period that extended from October 17, 2005 to January 17, 2006. 

Determination (check one below):
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

159

 X Use is Not Compatible

 Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Refuge Manager: /Mark Vaniman/ Date: 10/9/2012

Regional Chief: /Tom Worthington (Acting)/ Date: 12/10/2012

Mandatory 10-or 15-year Re-evaluations Date: 2027
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

160

Compatibility Determination

Use: Research

Refuge Name: Huron National Wildlife Refuge, Harbor Island National Wildlife Refuge, 

Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Varied. Migratory Bird conservation Act 16 U.S.C & 715d.

Refuge Purpose:

". . . as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife . . . " Executive Order 

7795, dated January 12, 1938 revoked the executive order from 1905 and established Huron 

Migratory Bird Refuge.

" . . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds." 16 U.S.C. 71 5d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act).

“(for the) . . . conservation, management, and restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . . " 

16 U.S.C. n 668dd (a) (2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act).

Designated wilderness in 1970 to ” . . . secure for the American people of present and future 

generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness" Public Law 91-504, October 23, 

1970 (Huron NWR, Scarecrow, Pismire, and Shoe Islands). 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The mission is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.

Description of Use: 

What is the use? The use is research projects conducted by universities and other academic 

institutions; government agencies such as the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and 

the U.S. Geological Survey; and private conservation organizations. Research projects will 

focus on better understanding of refuge wildlife and habitat resources, provide information to 

improve adaptive management decisions, and increase life history information on species of 

concern.

A refuge research application accompanied by a written project proposal is required for review 

and approval before access will be allowed. If approved, access to refuge lands and waters will 

be limited to the least invasive means required to accomplish the activities. Research will be 

carried out by professors, students, contractors, and refuge staff and volunteers. Researchers 

will be required to notify the refuge manager or his/her designee of entry and exit times when 

conducting research, provide written reports, and make data available to the refuge staff.
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

161

Where is the use conducted? On lands within the Huron NWR, Harbor Island NWR, and 

Michigan Islands NWR.

When is the use conducted? Research may occur at all times of the year, day or night. 

However, most research activity occurs during the summer months and daylight hours.

How is the use conducted? All research activities will be conducted with the primary goals, 

objectives and habitat management requirements of the refuge as the guiding principles. Every 

effort will be made to minimize the impacts of research activities on wildlife and their habitats 

and avoid conflicts with public use and management activities. A Special Use Permit will be 

issued for each research project that specifies what, when, where, and how research may be 

conducted on the refuge.

Why is the use being proposed? Research and monitoring information is critical to making 

sound biological decisions in the restoration and management of ecosystems/landscapes for 

fish and wildlife communities occurring on national wildlife refuges. It is needed to measure the 

successes and failures of management efforts. This is an important use with long-term benefits 

that ensures we have the best information possible upon which to base management decisions. 

Availability of Resources:

Approximately $100,000 to administer the research program within the Seney National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex. Much of the research is funded by grants, other government agencies, and 

universities; or conducted by students and volunteers. Refuge staff involvement includes 

reviewing research proposals, supervising or monitoring research activities, reviewing reports, 

providing some equipment and vehicles, and occasionally participating in field work. Based on 

a review of the current refuge budget, there is enough funding to ensure administration of this 

program if compatible with the purposes for which the refuges were established.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Disturbance to wildlife and vegetation by researchers could occur through vegetation sampling, 

capture and handling of wildlife, observation activities, banding, and accessing the study area. 

It is possible that that direct or indirect mortality could result as a byproduct of research 

activities. However, the overall impact of allowing well-designed and properly reviewed 

research to be conducted by non-service personnel is likely to have very little impact on refuge

wildlife populations. If the research project is conducted with professionalism and integrity, 

potential adverse impacts are likely to be outweighed by the knowledge gained about an entire 

species, habitat, or public use.

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment, which was announced in the Federal Register and available for 

public comment for 30 days.

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations
Appendix B: Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

162

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife Refuge System and island refuge goals and 

objectives, research can only occur under the following stipulations:

Each research proposal is evaluated to insure the latest techniques are used, and preference is 

given to projects that focus on better understanding of refuge wildlife and habitat resources, 

provide information to improve adaptive management decisions, and increase life history 

information on species of concern.

Researchers must follow their study proposal and comply with the provisions of their Special 

Use Permit.

Coordination will be maintained with the applied sciences staff.

Researchers must notify the refuge of all ingress and egress to study sites.

A report must be submitted at the end of each field season and at the conclusion of the study.

Researchers must make any data collected under the Special Use Permit available for refuge 

use.

Refuge research activities are evaluated annually to ensure that their collective impacts do not 

compromise the goals or objectives of the island refuges named herein. 

Justification: 

This use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented. 

Research and monitoring information is critical to making sound biological decisions in the 

restoration and management of ecosystems/landscapes for fish and wildlife communities 

occurring on national wildlife refuges. It is needed to measure the successes and failures of 

management efforts. This is an important use with long-term benefits that ensures we have the 

best information possible upon which to base management decisions.

Refuge Manager: /Mark Vaniman/ Date: 10/9/2012

Regional Chief: /Tom Worthington (Acting)/ Date: 12/10/2012

Mandatory 10-or 15-year Re-evaluations Date: 2022
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

163

Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Land Protection Plan for the Expansion of Green Bay and Michigan Islands National 

Wildlife Refuges (NWR, Refuge)

In this appendix:

Introduction

Proposed Action and Objective

Project Description

Joint Detailed Planning

Description of Habitat

Major Wildlife Values

Threat to and Status of Resources to be Protected

Protection Alternatives

Acquisition Alternatives

Coordination

Sociocultural Impacts

Strategic Habitat Conservation

Literature Cited

Green Bay NWR: Door County, Wisconsin and Delta County, Michigan

Michigan Islands NWR: United States Portions of Lakes Superior, Huron, and Michigan

Key Points

• Protection of additional Great Lakes island habitat critical for rare and declining 

species as well as other unique, underrepresented habitats

• Preservation of stopover sites along key bird migration corridors 

• Highly vulnerable to climate change, colonization by invasive species, and 

development 

• Acquisition priority based on criteria from the Conserving the Future vision 

document 

• Acquisition by a combination of fee title and less-than-fee title is preferred

• Diverse ownership patterns encourage potential partnering with other conservation 

agencies 
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

164
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

165

Introduction

With over 32,000 islands, the North American Great Lakes contain the largest collection of 

freshwater islands in the world. Extremely variable in nature, from size to complexity, these 

islands contain amazing biodiversity. However, many of them with the highest biodiversity are 

also under the greatest threat from human activity. Therefore, in 1996, a Preliminary Project 

Proposal (PPP) was approved to begin detailed planning for the addition of up to 4,133 acres in 

the Grand Traverse archipelago and an unknown amount in the upper end of Green Bay to 

Green Bay NWR (figure C-1). Likewise, in 2010 a PPP was approved to begin detailed 

planning to consider expansion of Michigan Islands NWR by approximately 10,000 acres within 

Lake Michigan and the United States’ portions of Lakes Superior and Huron (figure C-1). This 

Land Protection Plan (LPP) is a portion of the detailed planning initiated by the approval of both 

PPPs.

In 2009, an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

(CCP) were initiated for both these refuges as well as other refuges in the Great Lakes (i.e., 

Gravel Island, Huron, and Harbor Island NWRs). Expansions of these two refuges are part of 

the preferred alternative in the CCP. The purpose of this LPP is to provide information to the 

public in a clear and concise format outlining resource protection needs, the implementation 

schedule and priorities, and the dimensions of Service preservation proposals.

The following factors, consistent with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service) policy, 

generally guide land acquisition:

• The Service establishes new national wildlife refuges and expands existing refuge 

boundaries in order to fulfill the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System (NWRS, Refuge System) and the purpose(s) of individual refuges within the 

Refuge System.

• The Service acquires land only when other means of achieving program goals and 

objectives, such as zoning or regulation, are not appropriate, available, effective, or 

consistent with Service purpose and direction.

• The Service acquires land and water interests including, but not limited to, fee title, 

easements, leases, and other interests. Donations of desired lands or interests are 

encouraged.

• The Service respects the rights and interests of private landowners. Service policy has 

been and continues to be that land is purchased from willing sellers. As a result, the 

lands within a given project boundary that are of greatest interest to the Service because 

of their biological importance are not necessarily the first made available by willing 

sellers. In some cases lands within a project boundary may never become available for 

purchase.

• Law requires the Service to offer fair market value when acquiring lands. The Service 

must offer to buy the whole property when acquisition of only a portion of the property 

would leave the owner with an uneconomic remnant. The Service strives to minimize or 

eliminate any adverse impact on the landowner due to the acquisition process. 

Proposed Action and Objective

The proposed action is to permanently protect additional (strategically prioritized) island habitat 

(approximately 14,133 acres) in the Great Lakes by expanding Green Bay and Michigan Islands 

NWRs. As more thoroughly explained below, many of the Great Lakes islands:
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

166

• Harbor significant biodiversity;

• Support endangered, threatened, and candidate species;

• Serve as important breeding and staging areas for colonial nesting waterbirds;

• Provide re-fueling stopover sites for migrating birds; and

• Contain relict, unusual, and high quality plant and wildlife communities.

Many of the qualities that make Great Lakes islands unique also make them vulnerable to a 

variety of threats, with climate change, invasive species, and residential development topping 

the list. The acquisition priority of each island is based on criteria set forth by the Conserving 

the Future vision Strategic Growth implementation team. The guiding document for this team is 

Conserving the Future: Wildlife Refuges and the Next Generation (FWS, 2011). This document 

states, “The future growth of the Refuge System will be guided by the following priorities: 

habitats to fulfill the goals and objectives identified in threatened and endangered species 

recovery or habitat conservation plans; habitats to fulfill the goals and objectives identified in

national bird . . . management plans; habitats that are unique, rare, declining or underrepresented in existing protection efforts; climate refugia . . . ; and modifications to existing 

refuge boundaries to adapt to climate change . . . ”

The objective then, of this proposal, is:

To protect highly threatened Great Lakes islands’ habitat that is either underrepresented and 

unique; or critical for threatened and endangered species, focal colonial nesting waterbird 

species, or birds of conservation concern for Region 3 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Project Description

Location and Size

Green Bay National Wildlife Refuge

Green Bay NWR (330.7 acres) currently consists of Hog Island (2 acres), Plum Island (325 

acres), and Pilot Island (3.7 acres) (see map in CCP). The islands are located in Lake Michigan 

near Washington Island, off the tip of Wisconsin’s Door County Peninsula. Hog Island was set 

aside by Executive Order in 1913 as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds. Plum and 

Pilot Islands were transferred from the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) to the Service in 2007. The 

islands were acquired to protect native bird habitat and endangered species habitat in the Great 

Lakes Basin Ecosystem. In 1970, Hog Island and Gravel Island NWR were designated as the 

Wisconsin Islands Wilderness. The refuge is managed by staff at Horicon NWR in Mayville, WI. 

Hog Island supports a nesting colony of Herring Gulls and a few nesting Great Blue Herons and 

Red-breasted Mergansers. No development has occurred on Hog Island due to its small size, 

remoteness, and landing difficulties. 

Portions of Plum and Pilot Islands were developed to serve as lighthouse facilities or lifesaving 

stations during the late 19th century. Plum Island essentially functions as a small ecosystem 

and retains natural qualities absent on the nearby mainland. Today Pilot Island supports nesting 
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

167

colonies of Double-crested Cormorants and Herring Gulls. A handful of Great Blue Herons and 

Black-crowned Night-Herons also nest on Pilot Island. 

All public use is prohibited on Hog and Pilot Islands due to ground nesting by migratory birds 

and the limited and treacherous access. Plum Island may offer public use opportunities in the 

future provided they are compatible with the refuge’s purpose and mission. 

Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuge

Michigan Islands NWR (744 acres) is comprised of nine islands in Lakes Michigan and Huron 

(see map in CCP). Thunder Bay (122 acres), Scarecrow (9 acres) and Sugar (144 acres) 

Islands in Thunder Bay (near Alpena, MI), and Charity (214 acres) and Little Charity (11 acres) 

islands in Saginaw Bay are managed by Shiawassee NWR in Saginaw, MI. Seney NWR has 

management responsibility for Gull (230 acres), Pismire (2 acres), Hat (11 acres), and Shoe 

(0.5 acres) Islands, part of the Beaver Island Group in the northern portion of Lake Michigan. 

Shoe and Pismire Islands in Lake Michigan and Scarecrow Island in Lake Huron were the first 

acquired. Thunder Bay Island in Lake Huron was added in 1965 by a USCG/ Service 

agreement. The USCG ceded Lake Michigan's Gull Island to the Service in 1969. In 1970, 

Scarecrow, Pismire, and Shoe Islands were officially designated as Michigan Islands 

Wilderness Area. A sixth island was added to the refuge in 1995, when The Nature 

Conservancy (TNC) transferred Hat Island in Lake Michigan to the Service. Charity and Little 

Charity Islands in Lake Huron's Saginaw Bay were added to the refuge in 1999. The most 

recent addition to Michigan Island NWR was Sugar Island in December of 2010. 

In 2000, Scarecrow and Thunder Bay Islands were designated part of the Thunder Bay National 

Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve. The designation gives federal protection to over 

100 well-preserved shipwrecks that litter the bottom of Thunder Bay, located near Alpena, MI. 

Once part of a major shipping channel, this 448-square-mile sanctuary is the first national 

marine sanctuary in fresh water and is located in an area that was known as "Shipwreck Alley" 

in the 1800s. Big Charity and Thunder Bay Islands have lighthouses and keeper's quarters. 

The islands are used for nesting by American Redstarts, Herring and Ring-billed Gulls, Doublecrested Cormorants, Great Blue Herons, Black-crowned Night-Herons, and Common and 

Caspian Terns. Thunder Bay Island is a rare, distinctive, alvar ecological community with a little 

bluestem alvar grassland, alvar pavement, and a limestone bedrock lakeshore. The refuge is 

closed to the public. 

Joint Detailed Planning 

This LPP is a joint detailed effort for both of the aforementioned PPPs. The approved study 

areas from both PPPs were initially reduced by eliminating the western portion of Lake Superior 

and Lake St. Clair between Lakes Huron and Erie (figure C-1, Initial Focus Area). This was 

primarily due to the large amount of public land, state parks, national parks, etc. and heavy 

development on much of the remaining private land already existing in these areas. Then, a 

GIS analysis, based on data representing three priorities set forth by the Conserving the Future 

vision Strategic Growth implementation team, was used to prioritize islands for future protection. 

The three priorities include:

• Presence of federal threatened, endangered, and candidate species; 
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

168

• Presence of birds in decline; and

• Presence of underrepresented unique habitat types.

In particular for this project, the “birds in decline” included three Upper Mississippi River/Great 

Lakes Region Joint Venture (UMR/GLRJV ) focal colonial nesting waterbird species (i.e., 

Common Tern, Black Tern, and Black-crowned Night-Heron) and Forester’s Tern (per 

communication with a Region 3 migratory bird biologist) as well as 20 other species (table C-1) 

on the 2008 Region 3 Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) List for Bird Conservation Regions 

(BCR) 12 and 23 (FWS, 2008). The BCC species use islands for stop-over sites to rest and 

refuel during migration as well as for breeding.

Also, in particular for this project, the “underrepresented unique habitat types” is based on the 

presence of key ecological systems (which includes rare plant communities and globally rare 

communities) from the Islands of Life: A Biodiversity and Conservation Atlas of the Great Lakes 

Islands study published by TNC of Canada in 2010 (Henson et al., 2010). 

All islands (68) known to have threatened, endangered, and candidate species or colonial 

nesting waterbirds present were considered a priority, except seven of the largest and most 

developed (i.e., Sugar – 31,574 acres, Bois Blanc – 23,660 acres, Washington – 14,362 acres, 

Drummond – 83,258 acres, Beaver – 36,787 acres, Neebish – 13,768 acres, North Manitou –

14,415 acres) and one that is known to contain environmental contaminants (Shelter Island). 

While these islands contain priority species and critical habitat for the endangered Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly (Washington and Bois Blanc), their highly developed nature more easily 

lends itself to handling any potential acquisition on a case-by-case basis. Three other islands 

(in addition to the 60 islands mentioned above) also contain critical habitat for the Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly and, therefore, were considered a priority as well. These 63 priority islands 

were then ranked based on the sum of normalized scores for the presence of those species as 

well as the 20 BCC and “underrepresented unique habitat types.” So, the higher the final score, 

the more rare and declining species and habitat types the island contains (figures C-2 through 

C-6 and tables C-2 and C-3). 

In the event that two or more priority islands become available for protection at the same time, 

threat potential could be used to prioritize them. Based on extrapolation from a crude analysis 

of existing “highly developed” islands, larger islands and those within five miles of the mainland 

appear to be more threatened by future development. Therefore, size and proximity to the 

mainland should be considered when poised with the option to buy two or more different priority 

islands at the same time with limited funding. “Highly developed” islands considered in the 

crude analysis mentioned above were determined by threat scores obtained from the Islands of 

Life study and are primarily based on housing density but also include roads, cropland, quarries, 

and mines. 

The priority island analysis described above is essentially a model, which is based on three 

criteria that are part of the future vision of the Refuge System. The data used in the model may 

change over time, with more complete or more accurate information as it becomes available—

for example, if a new island is found to have an endangered species. However, the model and 

the criteria it’s based on should not change until the vision of the Refuge System changes. 

Therefore, the 63 islands in figures C-2 through C-6 and tables C-2 and C-3 are the highest 

priority for growing the Refuge System today. In ten years with new data, assuming the Refuge 

System visions holds constant, the model may deliver a list of slightly different islands, perhaps 
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

169

more or fewer that are of high priority. The list of high priority islands to acquire may change 

over time, therefore, allowing this proposal to be adaptable. 

Description of Habitat 

The priority islands contain a variety of habitat types. Table C-5 shows the major and generally 

more common habitats found on some of the islands. Rare habitats including rare plant 

communities and globally rare communities, represented here by “key ecological systems,” 

occur on nearly 75 percent of the priority islands as well. The “key ecological systems” include 

the following:

• True alvar (grassland, savanna, and sparsely vegetated rock barrens that develop on flat 

limestone where soils are very shallow);

• Other alvars (including anthropogenic);

• Wetlands (swamp, marsh, bog, fen, muskeg);

• Grass and meadow;

• Prairie and savanna;

• Limestone plain forest complexes (this forest is likely to have more rare species and 

community types);

• All top scoring terrestrial blueprint systems (TNC, U.S. Great Lakes terrestrial portfolio); 

and

• All top scoring aquatic blueprint systems (TNC, U.S. Great Lakes aquatic portfolio). 

Alvars thrive where environmental extremes (e.g., seasonal hot, cold, drought, and flood) create 

naturally open landscapes, and therefore contain their own distinctive ecology. They support a 

unique set of plants—uncommon wildflowers, mosses and lichens, many kinds of grasses and 

sedges, and even some stunted trees. Animals common to alvars include birds, land snails, 

leafhoppers, and other invertebrates. 

Limestone plain forest complexes include coniferous, deciduous, and mixed forests. They can 

be dominated by species like white cedar, white spruce, aspen, and white birch. They often 

include a complex patchwork of wetlands and naturally open areas of thin soil over limestone or 

bedrock, which hosts a distinctive vegetation community, including a considerable number of 

rare plants.

Major Wildlife Values 

The priority islands also contain a variety of wildlife that colonizes islands through a variety of 

means. Species such as reptiles and amphibians can float on debris; birds such as gulls can 

carry seeds on their feet and feathers; migratory birds use islands as stop-over sites, and some 

stay to breed; mammals such as black bears, coyotes and wolves can swim or walk on ice to 

reach islands. Other species arrive through deliberate or accidental anthropogenic 

introductions. Twenty-three of the priority islands also contain threatened, endangered, and 

candidate species including the following:
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

170

• Piping Plover (endangered)

• Pitcher’s thistle (threatened)

• Houghton’s goldenrod (threatened)

• Dwarf lake iris (threatened)

• Eastern massasauga rattlesnake (candidate species)

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) pairs have been documented nesting for one or more years 

on eight (six priority) islands since the mid-1980s. Historically they bred extensively on the 

coastal sand and gravel beaches and fore-dunes of Great Lakes islands. However, the number 

of nesting pairs declined drastically in the 1940s and 1950s with increased shoreline 

development. Threats include predation, degradation of habitat (primarily from shoreline 

development), and human disturbance. Emerging potential threats include disease, wind 

turbine generators, and climate change. 

Pitcher’s thistle (Cirsium pitcheri) is found only in the Great Lakes Region and occurs in dune 

grasslands. The eleven (eight priority) islands on which it occurs contain some of the largest 

populations of this species. Bees and butterflies are important pollinators of Pitcher’s thistle, 

and its seeds are dispersed by wind and water. Pitcher’s thistle is adapted to a changing 

environment; however, intensive foot and vehicular traffic can increase erosion, destroy 

vegetation, and introduce competitive non-native species.

Houghton’s goldenrod (Solidago houghtonii) was first discovered in Mackinac County, Michigan 

and grows nowhere else in the world outside the Great Lakes. It occurs on eight (six priority)

islands and is typically found on moist sandy beaches and shallow depressions between low 

sand ridges along the shoreline (interdunal wetlands). Fluctuating water levels of the Great 

Lakes play a role in maintaining this unique goldenrod. During high water years, colonies of 

Houghton's goldenrod may be submerged. When water levels recede some plants survive the 

inundation, and new seedlings establish on the moist sand. 

Dwarf lake iris (Iris lacustris) grows on alvar barrens only around the Great Lakes. The 

lakeshore habitat of dwarf lake iris has been greatly reduced by shoreline development, and it 

now resides only on 16 (12 priority) islands. Residential and vacation homes as well as 

associated road-widening, chemical spraying and salting, and off-road vehicle use have caused 

disturbance and destruction of habitat.

Eastern massasauga rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus) occurs on three (two priority) islands with 

wetlands or shrub swamps with adjacent natural habitat in the uplands, including drier open 

shrub forest, open fields, grassy meadows, etc. This snake is a federal candidate species for 

which the Service has sufficient information on its biological status and threats to propose them 

as endangered or threatened. Candidate species receive no legal protection; however, 

conservation is encouraged since they may warrant future protection under the Endangered 

Species Act. Primary threats to the snake include human harassment and loss of wetland 

habitat.

Three islands contain critical habitat (habitat believed to be essential to the species' 

conservation) for the Hine’s emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora hineana). The Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly is among the most endangered dragonflies in the United States and is restricted to 

wetland habitats characterized by thin soils over dolomite bedrock with marshes, seeps, and 
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

171

sedge meadows. Fragmentation and destruction of suitable habitat are believed to be the main 

reasons for this species’ endangered status and continue to be the primary threats to its 

recovery.

Migration Corridors

Several of the priority islands also occur within Important Bird Areas (IBAs). The American Bird 

Conservancy’s IBA program is a global effort to identify and protect areas that are exceptionally 

important, even essential, for bird conservation (figure C-1). The program not only recognizes 

the sites as important, but mobilizes resources needed to protect them. 

The large shallow Saginaw Bay of Lake Huron is one IBA that is used by an array of waterbird 

species as a migratory stopover site, wintering ground, and breeding ground. Large migratory 

congregations of Tundra Swans, American Black Ducks, Mallards, Redheads, Common 

Goldeneyes, Mergansers, and Scaup have all been recorded in this area. Several important 

waterbird breeding colonies also exist within this IBA, including Common Tern, Caspian Tern, 

Ring-billed Gull, Great Egret, and Black-crowned Night-Heron. This area also supports the 

lower peninsula's largest spring raptor migration, with at least 18 species of hawks, eagles, 

vultures, and falcons concentrated in areas from Caseville, MI to Huron City, MI, up to two miles 

inland and occasionally over water. This IBA sits within an area of one of the state's largest 

wind power resources and is being targeted for several wind farms. At least one project is 

already completed (Harvest Wind Farm). 

The area from Sturgeon Bay, between St. Ignace, MI and Mackinaw City, MI, over to Saint 

Martin Bay (including Bois Blanc Island) is a key migration corridor. Since migratory birds 

(especially raptors) avoid crossing large bodies of water during migration, this area is an 

important migration route. Raptors (especially Bald Eagles) and songbirds “island hop” along 

this route and, therefore, concentrate in and around peninsulas. Two other key migration 

corridors encompassing priority islands for acquisition include the following: 

• The area from Grand Traverse Bay north toward Naubinway, MI, including North and 

South Manitou Islands, North and South Fox Islands and Beaver Island; and

• The chain of islands from the Door County Peninsula in Wisconsin to the Delta County 

Peninsula in Michigan (Big Bay de Noc), including Washington Island. 

Potential Population Benefit Examples

Due to the large number of bird species occurring in the Great Lakes and Big Rivers Region 

(Region 3, also known as the Midwest Region) of the Service and the limited resources 

available for conservation, the UMR/GLRJV selected several “JV focal species” for breeding 

habitat planning and population monitoring. The use of focal species is a conservation shortcut, 

reducing the number of models required for developing habitat objectives for a full suite of 

species. In effect, JV focal species were selected to represent cover types used by multiple 

species within that bird group. Monitoring results (i.e., population change) based on focal 

species are assumed to reflect the suite of species they represent. The following three species 

are provided as possible examples of how the proposed expansion could benefit such colonial 

nesting waterbird populations. The habitat objectives for protection, breeding territory size, and 

habitat requirements (area, type, etc.) are all from the UMR/GLRJV Waterbird Conservation 

Strategy completed in 2007.
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

172

Black Terns have been recorded nesting in three wetlands adjacent to priority islands. Their 

habitat needs include marshes with extensive stands of emergent vegetation and large areas of 

open water. The minimum habitat area required per colony is 50 acres with an average of 40 

birds per colony. The estimated area of quality habitat needed to accommodate current 

breeding populations is 23,350 acres. Acquiring the colony nest sites on those three islands 

would maintain and protect existing habitat for approximately 120 Black Terns (60 breeding 

pairs).

Black-crowned Night-Herons have used 15 of the 63 priority islands and prefer large marshes 

with a mix of open water, herbaceous vegetation, and nearby woody cover. The minimum 

habitat area required per colony is nearly 500 acres with an average of 220 birds per colony. 

The estimated area of quality habitat needed to accommodate current breeding populations is 

29,160 acres. Acquiring the colony nest sites on those 15 islands would maintain and protect 

existing habitat for approximately 3,300 Black-crowned Night-Herons (1,650 breeding pairs). 

Common Terns have used 16 of the 63 priority islands and primarily need large lakes often with 

marsh habitat and abundant small forage fish available from the surface. They prefer island or 

peninsula nest sites with sand, gravel, shell, or cobble substrates and scattered vegetation. A 

typical colony is 100 breeding pairs (200 birds) on a 400 square meter site (0.1 acres). The 

estimated area of quality habitat needed to accommodate current breeding populations is 38 

islands and associated territories. Acquiring the colony nest sites on those 16 islands would 

maintain and protect existing habitat for approximately 3,200 Common Terns (1,600 breeding 

pairs).

Threat to and Status of Resources to be Protected

Size, isolation, physical location, parent material, wave action exposure, fluctuating water levels, 

climate, and age all contribute to the biodiversity and distinctiveness of the islands in the Great 

Lakes. In particular, climate (where some islands experience warmer winters, later springs, and

cooler summers) and location (such as separation from the mainland) allow some of the islands 

to act as refugia with extremely diverse biota, often genetically and ecologically divergent from 

mainland populations (Vigmostad et al., 2007). Not surprisingly then, some islands contain 

threatened, endangered, and candidate species and some provide the most significant nesting 

and dry-land roosting habitat for colonial nesting waterbirds (Wires et al., 2010). 

Some of the characteristics that make these islands so diverse and distinct also make them the 

most vulnerable. In particular, the relatively small size and isolation of islands makes them 

subject to quick change by both natural and anthropogenic forces. Fluctuating water levels, 

increases in deer density and colonization, and abandonment by colonial nesting waterbirds 

have all triggered fast ecological change on islands in the past (Vigmostad et al., 2007). 

This combination of unique diversity and vulnerability subject these islands to several significant 

threats. Climate change, colonization by invasive species, and development (mostly residential) 

top the list (Wires et al., 2010). Some examples include the following:

• Islands that are distant from the mainland generally experience less predation, less 

competition, and are less disturbed by humans; however, they are often more vulnerable 

to storm-driven waves and climate-induced water level change.
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

173

• Islands that are isolated often contain unique floral communities; however, colonization 

by invasive species, particularly plants, quickly changes their structure, composition, and 

character.

• Larger islands (and sometimes closer to the mainland) often contain habitat for rare or 

declining species, however, those qualities also promote development and colonization 

by humans. 

Climate change will likely add another layer of stress to the Great Lakes and, therefore, the 

islands within them, as they are particularly susceptible to the effects of rapid global warming 

(Wires et al., 2010). Water temperatures are expected to rise—with an expected average air 

temperature increase of 2–4 oC—reducing seasonal mixing and biomass productivity (i.e., 

reduced aquatic organisms that form the base of the food chain), and decreasing water quality 

characterized by increased algal blooms (Wires et al., 2010). Precipitation is expected to 

increase 25 percent by the end of the 21st century; however, lake water levels are predicted to 

fall (by the year 2100) due to the increased temperatures and related evaporation. This could 

create new mainland connections and, therefore, increase predation, competition, and 

disturbance. While some level of adaptation is expected for some species, certain barriers and 

invasive species will likely limit that adaptation. Losses then, in local biodiversity, are likely to 

accelerate towards the end of the 21st century (Wires et al., 2010). 

Other lingering threats, including wind turbine generators, increased recreation (especially foot 

and vehicular traffic), and disease will also add to the vulnerability of these island systems. 

Protection Alternatives

Alternative 1 – No Action

The No-Action Alternative includes no expansion or additional acquisition by Green Bay or 

Michigan Islands NWRs. The existing islands within these two refuges would remain in the 

Refuge System, and management of them would continue as currently planned. This 

alternative is not preferred, because it does not increase protection of high priority habitat that 

will help the Service achieve the following important priorities:

• Threatened and endangered species recovery plan goals;

• Joint Venture waterbird population objectives; and

• A trend reversal for other “birds in decline.”

While this alternative would be the least expensive approach, it does not meet the objective of 

this proposal.

Alternative 2 – Acquisition and/or Management by Others (State, 

County, Non-Governmental Organizations, etc.)

In Alternative 2, Green Bay and Michigan Islands NWRs would be expanded based on the 

priority list generated above; however, acquisition and/or management of that expansion would 

be undertaken by a partner agency and not by the Service. This alternative is not preferred, 

because other partner agencies are unlikely to have sufficient funds for acquisition or adequate 
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

174

staff for management. The Service is the principal federal agency responsible for administering 

the Endangered Species Act and managing and conserving migratory birds in the United States. 

Therefore, threatened and endangered species as well as migratory birds are essential Service 

priorities. Partner agencies have their own unique missions, responsibilities, and priorities that 

differ from those of the Service. Conservation of the priority islands, then, may not be their first 

interest. This alternative would:

• Have minimal or no cost to the Service; 

• Meet the objective of this proposal; however, it would 

• Not be a reasonable option since partner agencies have not expressed interest in such 

acquisition and/or management. 

Alternative 3 – Acquisition by Fee Title (Service)

In Alternative 3, Green Bay and Michigan Islands NWRs would be expanded based on the 

priority list generated above through outright purchase of the islands at fair market value. That 

is, the Service would own all or portions of the islands acquired as part of the expansion. This 

alternative is not preferred, because some existing island owners may not be willing to sell their 

property to the Service. They may, however, be willing to sell and give up certain property 

rights to protect rare species and habitats. This alternative excludes the use of easements in 

which the Service would purchase development and other rights but not the actual property to 

protect rare species and their habitats. While this alternative would meet the objective of this 

proposal, it: 

• Is likely the most costly option since all properties would be acquired outright (including 

all rights);

• May prove ineffective as many landowners may not be willing to sell their properties; and

• Is unnecessary as the Service can use less-than-fee title acquisition to conserve at least 

some rare species and their habitats. 

Alternative 4 – Acquisition by Less-Than-Fee Title (Service)

In Alternative 4, Green Bay and Michigan Islands NWRs would be expanded based on the 

priority list generated above through purchase of certain rights to the island properties but not 

the actual properties. That is, the Service would not own any of the islands (or portions of them) 

acquired for the expansion. This alternative is not preferred, because some species (i.e., 

colonial nesting waterbirds, Piping Plovers, eastern massasauga rattlesnakes) require habitat 

free from human disturbance. This alternative is also limiting, because some island property 

owners may not be interested in selling only certain property rights to the Service. They may 

only be interested in selling their properties outright. This alternative, then, eliminates the use of 

fee title purchase as a conservation tool, in which the Service actually owns the property. This 

alternative:

• Is likely to be less costly than Alternative 3, since only certain rights are purchased and 

not the entire property; 
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

175

• May prove ineffective, since some landowners may be unwilling to sell only certain rights 

to their property; and

• Would not effectively meet the objective of this proposal by eliminating human 

disturbance to colonial nesting waterbirds, other species, and unique habitats.

Alternative 5 – Acquisition by a Combination of Fee Title and LessThan-Fee Title (Service) as well as Acquisition and for Management 

by Others (State, County, Non-Governmental Organization, etc.) 

(Preferred Alternative)

This alternative is essentially a combination of Alternatives 3 and 4 above. In this alternative, 

Green Bay and Michigan Islands NWRs would be expanded based on the priority list generated 

above through a combination of outright purchase of islands and through the purchase of 

certain rights to the island properties via conservation easements . In addition, other 

governmental and non-governmental partners would be encouraged to pursue similar 

conservation measures. This alternative is preferred, because:

• It is the most cost-effective approach to meeting the objective of this proposal; and

• Is also very adaptable, allowing for a variety of means to conserve island property, 

therefore allowing more options to work with island property owners.

Fee title acquisition would be preferred for acquiring all islands where colonial nesting 

waterbirds, Piping Plovers, and eastern massasauga rattlesnakes occur. Since human 

disturbance is a major threat to these species, fee title acquisition of a property that can be 

closed to public use, at least partially or seasonally, would provide the best protection. Lessthan-fee title acquisition is preferred for all other island properties (tables C-2 and C-3). 

Important rights for the Service to consider when acquiring priority island property with the lessthan-fee title option include: development (all types including roads), off-road vehicle use, party 

hunting, and use of herbicide or other appropriate tools to manage invasive species. Allowing 

or disallowing these activities is important to protecting the sensitive resources around which 

this proposal is built.

Acquisition Alternatives 

Purchase

There are two different types of “purchase” that can be used to protect habitat. Fee purchase 

involves buying—as the availability of funding allows—a parcel of land outright from a willing 

seller in fee title, which involves all rights and complete ownership. Easement purchase refers 

to the purchase of limited rights (i.e., less-than-fee title) from an interested landowner. The 

landowner retains ownership of the land but sells certain rights identified and agreed upon by 

both parties. The objectives and conditions of proposed conservation easements recognize 

lands for their importance to wildlife habitat or outdoor recreational activities. 

Funding to buy land comes primarily from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), 

which derives from certain user fees, the proceeds from the disposal of surplus federal property, 

the federal tax on motor boat fuels, and oil and gas lease revenues. About 90 percent of that 
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

176

fund now derives from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leases. The federal government 

receives about 40 percent of that fund to acquire and develop nationally significant conservation 

lands. Other sources of funding to purchase land include the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, 

which derives from Federal Duck Stamp revenue, Environmental Protection Agency grants 

(albeit rare), and other funds geared for a specific use—of which one of the islands may fit. 

These funds, but primarily LWCF, will be used to acquire either full or partial interest in the 

priority islands listed above as opportunities in both land and funding arise.

Donation

Generally, donations in the approved area as fee title or conservation easement are encouraged 

and welcomed as long as management concerns, such as contaminants, are a not a major 

issue. Presently, there are no known opportunities to accept donations.

Exchange

The Service has the authority to exchange land in Service ownership for other land that has 

greater habitat/wildlife value. Inherent in this concept is the requirement to get dollar‐for‐dollar 

value with, occasionally, an equalization payment. Exchanges are attractive, because they 

usually do not increase federal land holdings or require purchase funds; however, they also may 

be very labor and time intensive to complete. Presently, there are no known opportunities for 

exchange.

Transfer

Transfer of military, USCG, and other lands declared excess to the Service is also acceptable. 

Poverty Island (one of the 63 priority islands) is currently in the process of being transferred to 

General Services Administration from the Bureau of Land Management and the USCG with 

plans for eventual transfer to the Service.

Coordination

Coordination efforts for the proposed expansion have been somewhat limited given the 

scattered nature of the islands of concern and the vastness of the Great Lakes. However, the 

diverse ownership pattern on many of the islands lends itself to many potential partners once 

the expansion is approved. For example, many of the islands contain at least some state 

property, which opens the doors to coordinating with Wisconsin and Michigan state 

conservation agencies. The Bureau of Land Management, U. S. Coast Guard, and other 

agencies divest properties from time to time making them ideal for coordination, as has been 

the case in the past.

The Service coordinated with several agencies to gather data as input for the model used to 

prioritize islands for acquisition. TNC has been involved with island transfers and other island 

acquisitions in the past. Data from TNC’s Islands of Life study was used as a basis for the 

model providing digitized islands as well as many attributes associated with them. The 

University of Minnesota contributed to the analysis for this proposal through the data collected 

from colonial nesting waterbird surveys. The UMR/GLRJV provided guidance for this proposal 

regarding focal colonial nesting waterbirds. Also, threatened and endangered species 
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

177

information was provided through the Natural Heritage Inventory data from Wisconsin and 

Michigan. 

And finally, there are several “islands” FWS Friends Groups who have rallied behind expansion 

of these two refuges and support the criteria used to prioritize islands for acquisition. 

Sociocultural Impacts

There are no anticipated negative sociocultural impacts associated with this proposal; however, 

there may be some positive impacts. Acquisition of the priority islands by the Service may 

prevent them from being developed. This may result in a slight improvement to public health 

(water quality) and safety (fewer roads, airports, congestion, etc.). Acquisition of the priority 

islands may also allow for some public use that currently does not exist due to private 

ownership. This may result in a slight increase in recreational opportunities for the general 

public. Public use opportunities will, however, be very situational given the sensitivity of the 

species and habitats on the islands that are being acquired. Furthermore, if any of the islands 

acquired contain cultural resources or heritage assets including archaeological sites, buildings 

and structures, landscapes, objects, and historic documents, they will be protected in perpetuity 

along with the rare species and habitats of concern.

Strategic Habitat Conservation

This proposal has been developed with a Strategic Habitat Conservation framework: 

Biological Planning

Federal trust and other species and habitats of interest have been identified as well as 

population objectives for some focal species earlier in this document, including: Piping Plover, 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly (critical habitat), Pitcher’s thistle, Houghton’s goldenrod, dwarf lake 

iris, eastern massasauga rattlesnake, Common Tern, Forester’s Tern, Black-crowned NightHeron, Black Tern, alvars, wetlands, and limestone plain forest complexes.

Conservation Design

Islands within the approved study areas from the two PPPs were prioritized by determining 

species and habitats of interest. These species and habitats of interest formed the three criteria 

that were used to drive a model. This model, which included a ranking of islands considered a 

priority, produced an organized list of priority islands for future acquisition.

Conservation Delivery

This planning process was used to determine the best approach (e.g., fee title, easement, 

partnership, etc.) to protect and restore essential habitat for the species of interest as well as 

other underrepresented and unique habitats through the possible expansion of two refuges.

Assumption-driven Research and Outcome-based Monitoring

If this proposal is approved and the two refuges are expanded, management activities (or lack 

thereof in the case of disturbance being a big threat to colonial nesting waterbirds, etc.) and 
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

178

their effect on the species and habitats of interest will be evaluated, so the assumptions made 

from the previous planning can be adapted and refined as necessary. “Lessons learned” will be 

shared and utilized for improvement of future management decisions.

Literature Cited

Henson, B. L., D. T. Kraus, M. J. McMurtry and D. N. Ewert. 2010. Islands of Life: A 

Biodiversity and Conservation Atlas of the Great Lakes Islands. Nature Conservancy of 

Canada. 154 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Conserving the Future: Wildlife Refuges and the Next 

Generation. United States.

Vigmostad, K. E., F. Cuthbert, D. Ewert, D. Kraus, M. Seymour, and L. Wires. 2007. Great 

Lakes Islands: Biodiversity Elements and Threats. A Final Report to the Great Lakes National 

Program Office of the Environmental Protection Agency. 70 pp. 

Wires, L. R., S. J. Lewis, G. J. Soulliere, S. W. Matteson, D. V. “Chip” Weseloh, R. P. Russell, 

and F. J. Cuthbert. 2010. Upper Mississippi River/Great Lakes Region Waterbird Conservation 

Strategy. A plan associated with the Waterbird Conservation for the Americas Initiative. Final 

Report submitted to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, MN. 

More detailed information on the sources for data used in this document and the spatial analysis 

completed can be found in the project file. 
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

179

Figure C-1: Great Lakes Islands Expansion Approved Study Area
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

180

Figure C-2: Priority islands for the expansion of Green Bay and Michigan Islands National 

Wildlife Refuges, Saginaw Bay Area
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

181

Figure C-3: Priority islands for the expansion of Green Bay and Michigan Islands National 

Wildlife Refuges, Thunder Bay Area
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

182

Figure C-4: Priority islands for the expansion of Green Bay and Michigan Islands National 

Wildlife Refuges, Green Bay Area
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

183

Figure C-5: Priority islands for the expansion of Green Bay and Michigan Islands National 

Wildlife Refuges, Northern Lake Huron Area
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

184

Figure C-6: Priority islands for the expansion of Green Bay and Michigan Islands National 

Wildlife Refuges, Northern Lake Michigan Area
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

185

Table C-1: Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) for Region 3 of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service that occur within Bird Conservation Regions (BCR) 12 and 23 and the 

project area

American 

Ornithologists Union 

Code

Common Name Scientific Name Primary

Habitat

HOGR Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus Wetland

AMBI American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Wetland

BAEA Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Lake

YERA Yellow Rail Coturnicops noveboracensis Wetland

SOSA Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria Wetland

UPSA Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Grassland

WHIM Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus Wetland

REKN Red Knot (rufa ) Calidris canutus rufa Wetland

BBSA Buff-breasted Sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis Grassland

SBDO Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus Wetland

BBCU Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus Shrub-Forest

SEOW Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Grassland

WPWI Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus Shrub-Forest

OSFL Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi Wetland-Coniferous Forest

WOTH Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Deciduous Forest

GWWA Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera Shrub-Wetland

CAWA Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis Mixed Forest

NSTS Nelson's Sparrow Ammodramus nelsoni Wetland-Grassland

SMLO Smith’s Longspur Calcarius pictus Grassland

RUBL Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus Wetland-Forest
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

186

(This page intentionally left blank)
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

187

Table C-2: Summary of the proposed action: Attributes used to determine and rank sixty-three priority islands for the 

expansion of Green Bay and Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuges

TNC 

Complex 

Number

TNC 

Complex 

Name

Houghton's 

Goldenrod

Dwarf 

Lake 

Iris

Pitcher's 

Thistle

Hine's 

Emerald 

Dragonfly

Hine's 

Emerald 

Dragonfly 

Critical 

Habitat

Piping 

Plover

Eastern 

Massasauga 

Rattlesnake

Key 

Ecological 

Systems 

(#)

Colonial 

Nesting 

Waterbird

(AOU 

code)

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern

(AOU code)

Priority 

Rank

LM11-

394 no no no no yes no no 2 1.4

LM11-

418 no no no no yes no no 2 1.4

LM11-

421 no no no no yes no no 2 1.4

LH5-

1333 Charity Island no no yes no no no yes 1 COTE BAEA 1.4

LM12-

1435 Hog Island yes yes yes no no no no 2 BAEA 1.3

LH10-

1323

Big Saint 

Martin Island yes yes no no no no no 3 BAEA 1.3

LH10-

1324

Saint Martin 

Island yes yes no no no no no 3 BAEA 1.3

LM12-

1436 Garden Island yes no yes no no no no 3 BAEA 1.3

LH5-

1337 Maisou Island no no no no no no no 2 COTE BAEA 1.2

LM9-274 Cat Island no no no no no no no 1 COTE, 

BCNH

1.2

LM9-344 Peshtigo 

Harbor E. Bay no no no no no no no 3 COTE

 

1.1

LM12-

1438

Waugoshance 

Island no no no no no yes no 2 COTE 1.1

LM13-

1272

South Manitou 

Island no no yes no no no no 2 BAEA 0.9

LM12-

1443 High Island no no yes no no yes no 1 BAEA 0.9

LM13-

1270

South Fox 

Island no no yes no no yes no 1 BAEA 0.9

LH10-

719 Goose Island no no no no no no no 2 BCNH 0.9

LH5-127 Lengsville 

Point no no no no no no no 2 FOTE 0.9

LH5-128 Mallard Point no no no no no no no 2 FOTE 0.9

LH5-129 Cattails E. of 

Pitchers Reef no no no no no no no 2 FOTE 0.9

LH5-133 Nayanquing 

Offshore no no no no no no no 2 FOTE 0.9

LH5-136 Northeast no no no no no no no 2 FOTE 0.9
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

188

TNC 

Complex 

Number

TNC 

Complex 

Name

Houghton's 

Goldenrod

Dwarf 

Lake 

Iris

Pitcher's 

Thistle

Hine's 

Emerald 

Dragonfly

Hine's 

Emerald 

Dragonfly 

Critical 

Habitat

Piping 

Plover

Eastern 

Massasauga 

Rattlesnake

Key 

Ecological 

Systems 

(#)

Colonial 

Nesting 

Waterbird

(AOU 

code)

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern

(AOU code)

Priority 

Rank

Sebewaing

LH5-142 Defoe Island no no no no no no no 2 FOTE 0.9

LH9-773 Saddlebag 

Island no no no no no no no 2 BCNH 0.9

LM12-

942

Epoufette 

Island no no no no no no no 2 BCNH 0.9

LS5-

1014

North Raber 

Bay no no no no no no no 2 BLTE 0.9

LS5-

1076 West Sugar II no no no no no no no 2 COTE 0.9

LS5-

1090

Island Number 

Three no no no no no no no 2 COTE 0.9

LS5-964 Little Lime 

Island no no no no no no no 2 COTE 0.9

LS6-

1037

North of 

Munuscong 

River

no no no no no no no 2

BLTE 0.9

LS6-

1038

Munuscong 

Dike no no no no no no no 2 BLTE 0.9

LS6-917 Sweets 

Islands no no no no no no no 2 COTE 0.9

LH5-

1334 North Island no no no no no no yes 3 0.8

LM12-

1437

Temperance 

Island no no no no no yes no 3 0.8

LM10-

606 Round Island no no no no no no no 0 BCNH BAEA 0.8

LH10-

1322

Little La Salle 

Island no yes yes no no no no 2 0.8

LH10-

824 Pleasant Point yes yes no no no no no 2 0.8

LM11-

1461 Detroit Island no yes no no no no no 1 BAEA 0.7

LM13-

1269

North Fox 

Island no no yes no no no no 1 BAEA 0.7

LM10-

400

Little 

Strawberry 

Island

no no no no no no no 1

BCNH 0.7

LM10-

416 Sister Islands no no no no no no no 1 BCNH 0.7

LM9-308 Pensaukee 

Island no no no no no no no 1 COTE 0.7

LH10-

1439

Waugoshance 

Point no no no no no yes no 2 0.6
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

189

TNC 

Complex 

Number

TNC 

Complex 

Name

Houghton's 

Goldenrod

Dwarf 

Lake 

Iris

Pitcher's 

Thistle

Hine's 

Emerald 

Dragonfly

Hine's 

Emerald 

Dragonfly 

Critical 

Habitat

Piping 

Plover

Eastern 

Massasauga 

Rattlesnake

Key 

Ecological 

Systems 

(#)

Colonial 

Nesting 

Waterbird

(AOU 

code)

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern

(AOU code)

Priority 

Rank

LM11-

1445

Summer 

Island no yes no no no no no 2 0.6

LM11-

389 no yes no no no no no 2 0.6

LM12-

609 no no no no no yes no 2 0.6

GB6-939 Harbor Island 

Reef no no no no no no no 0 COTE 0.5

GB6-944 Andrews 

Island no no no no no no no 0 COTE 0.5

GB6-954 Little Cass 

Island no no no no no no no 0 COTE 0.5

LH10-

692 Green Island no no no no no no no 0 BCNH 0.5

LH5-202 Charity Island no no no no no no no 0 BCNH 0.5

LH6-326 Scarecrow 

Island no no no no no no no 0 COTE 0.5

LH7-351 Grass Island no no no no no no no 0 BCNH 0.5

LH7-358 Gull Island no no no no no no no 0 BCNH 0.5

LM10-

537 Rocky Island no no no no no no no 0 BCNH 0.5

LM10-

652

Shoal South 

of Martin Bay no no no no no no no 0 COTE 0.5

LM10-

673

St Vitals 

Island Shoal no no no no no no no 0 COTE 0.5

LM11-

501

Little Gull 

Island no no no no no no no 0 BCNH 0.5

LM11-

504 Gull Island no no no no no no no 0 BCNH 0.5

LM12-

675 Shoe Island no no no no no no no 0 BCNH 0.5

LH8-

1326 Round Island no yes no no no no no 1 0.4

LM11-

1446 Poverty Island no yes no no no no no 1 0.4

LH9-

1309 Meade Island no yes no no no no no 0 0.2
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

190

Table C-3: Summary of the proposed action: Other attributes of sixty-three priority islands for the expansion of Green Bay 

and Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuges

TNC 

Complex 

Number

TNC 

Complex 

Name

Acres

Houses 

per Acre 

(year 

2000)

TNC 

Threat 

Score

Gov't 

Owned 

(%)

Private 

Owned 

(%)

NGO 

Owned 

(%)

Lighthouse

Elevation, 

from 

water 

surface 

(m) 

Miles 

to 

Closest 

NWR

Type of 

Protection

Type of 

Acquisition

NWR to 

Expand

LH10-

1316

Marquette 

Island 4,420 0.0 1 0 74 26 no 65 28 Less-ThanFee Title any Michigan Islands 

LM11-

394 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 no 1 1 Less-ThanFee Title any Green Bay 

LM11-

418 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 no 0 1 Less-ThanFee Title any Green Bay 

LM11-

421 2 0.0 1 0 100 0 no 2 0 Less-ThanFee Title any Green Bay 

LH5-

1333

Charity 

Island 267 0.0 0 77 11 11 yes 16 0 Fee Title

any Michigan 

Islands 

LM12-

1435

Hog Island 2,272 0.0 0 100 0 0 no 36 1 Less-ThanFee Title any Michigan 

Islands 

LH10-

1323

Big Saint 

Martin Island 822 0.0 2 0 100 0 no 34 33 Less-ThanFee Title any Michigan Islands 

LH10-

1324

Saint Martin 

Island 505 0.0 0 0 100 0 no 31 36 Less-ThanFee Title any Michigan Islands 

LM12-

1436

Garden 

Island 4,580 0.0 1 98 2 0 no 75 1 Less-ThanFee Title any Michigan Islands 

LH5-

1337

Maisou 

Island 298 0.0 1 99 1 0 no 12 12 Fee Title

any Michigan 

Islands 

LM9-274 Cat Island 11 0.0 0 0 100 0 no 1 62 Fee Title any Green Bay 

LM9-344 Peshtigo 

Harbor E. 

Bay

30 0.0 0 0 100 0 no 0 3

Fee Title

any

Green Bay 

LM12-

1438

Waugoshanc

e Island 226 0.0 0 99 1 0 no 11 11 Fee Title

any Michigan 

Islands 

LM13-

1272

South 

Manitou 

Island

5,308 0.4 15 68 32 0 yes 425 41

Less-ThanFee Title anyMichigan 

Islands 

LM12-

1443

High Island 3,587 0.0 1 100 0 0 no 238 7 Fee Title

any Michigan 

Islands 

LM13-

1270

South Fox 

Island 3,434 0.0 0 35 65 0 yes 351 34 Fee Title

any Michigan 

Islands 

LH10-

719

Goose Island 20 0.0 0 0 100 0 no 14 3 Fee Title

any Michigan 

Islands 

LH5-127 Lengsville 

Point 8 0.0 0 0 100 0 no 2 50 Fee Title

any Michigan 

Islands 

LH5-128 Mallard Point 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 no 2 50 Fee Title

any Michigan 

Islands 

LH5-129 Cattails E. of 

Pitchers 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 no 0 7 Fee Title

any Michigan 

Islands 
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

191

TNC 

Complex 

Number

TNC 

Complex 

Name

Acres

Houses 

per Acre 

(year 

2000)

TNC 

Threat 

Score

Gov't 

Owned 

(%)

Private 

Owned 

(%)

NGO 

Owned 

(%)

Lighthouse

Elevation, 

from 

water 

surface 

(m) 

Miles 

to 

Closest 

NWR

Type of 

Protection

Type of 

Acquisition

NWR to 

Expand

Reef

LH5-133 Nayanquing 

Offshore 7 0.0 0 0 100 0 no 1 55 Fee Title

any Michigan 

Islands 

LH5-136 Northeast 

Sebewaing 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 no 0 3 Fee Title

any Michigan 

Islands 

LH5-142 Defoe Island 11 0.0 0 96 4 0 no 6 41 Fee Title

any Michigan 

Islands 

LH9-773 Saddlebag 

Island 5 0.0 0 84 16 0 no 0 57 Fee Title

any Michigan 

Islands 

LM12-

942

Epoufette 

Island 4 0.0 0 0 100 0 no 7 3 Fee Title

any Michigan 

Islands 

LS5-

1014

North Raber 

Bay 1 0.0 0 19 81 0 no 0 3 Fee Title

any Michigan 

Islands 

LS5-

1076

West Sugar 

II 5 0.0 0 0 100 0 no 4 11 Fee Title

any Michigan 

Islands 

LS5-

1090

Island 

Number 

Three

60 0.0 1 0 99 1 no 17 1

Fee Title

any

Michigan 

Islands 

LS5-964 Little Lime 

Island 15 0.0 0 99 1 0 no 11 28 Fee Title

any Michigan 

Islands 

LS6-

1037

North of 

Munuscong 

River

0 0.0 0 0 100 0 no 0 36

Fee Title

any

Michigan 

Islands 

LS6-

1038

Munuscong 

Dike 8 0.0 0 88 12 0 no 0 5 Fee Title

any Michigan 

Islands 

LS6-917 Sweets 

Islands 3 0.0 0 0 100 0 no 2 35 Fee Title

any Michigan 

Islands 

LH5-

1334

North Island 129 0.0 1 0 100 0 no 16 8 Fee Title

any Michigan 

Islands 

LM12-

1437

Temperance 

Island 221 0.0 0 98 2 0 no 11 13 Fee Title

any Michigan 

Islands 

LM10-

606

Round Island 34 0.0 0 0 100 0 no 9 14 Fee Title

any Green Bay 

LH10-

1322

Little La 

Salle Island 273 0.0 1 0 61 39 no 21 28 Less-ThanFee Title any Michigan Islands 

LH10-

824

Pleasant 

Point 1 0.0 2 0 100 0 no 1 35 Less-ThanFee Title any Michigan Islands 

LM11-

1461

Detroit Island 639 0.3 17 0 100 0 no 82 27 Less-ThanFee Title any Green Bay 

LM13-

1269

North Fox 

Island 832 0.0 0 100 0 0 no 168 35 Less-ThanFee Title any Michigan Islands 

LM10-

400

Little 

Strawberry 

Island

15 0.0 0 0 100 0 no 12 3

Fee Title

any

Green Bay 
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

192

TNC 

Complex 

Number

TNC 

Complex 

Name

Acres

Houses 

per Acre 

(year 

2000)

TNC 

Threat 

Score

Gov't 

Owned 

(%)

Private 

Owned 

(%)

NGO 

Owned 

(%)

Lighthouse

Elevation, 

from 

water 

surface 

(m) 

Miles 

to 

Closest 

NWR

Type of 

Protection

Type of 

Acquisition

NWR to 

Expand

LM10-

416

Sister 

Islands 6 0.0 0 0 100 0 no 2 55 Fee Title

any Green Bay 

LM9-308 Pensaukee 

Island 4 0.0 0 0 100 0 no 0 1 Fee Title

any Green Bay 

LH10-

1439

Waugoshanc

e Point 240 0.0 0 99 1 0 no 4 14 Fee Title

any Michigan 

Islands 

LM11-

1445

Summer 

Island 2,205 0.0 0 58 42 0 no 119 16 Less-ThanFee Title any Green Bay 

LM11-

389 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 no 0 53 Less-ThanFee Title any Green Bay 

LM12-

609 15 0.0 0 98 2 0 no 3 18 Fee Title

any Michigan 

Islands 

GB6-939 Harbor 

Island Reef 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 no 0 19 Fee Title

any Michigan 

Islands 

GB6-944 Andrews 

Island 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 no 1 10 Fee Title

any Michigan 

Islands 

GB6-954 Little Cass 

Island 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 no 2 11 Fee Title

any Michigan 

Islands 

LH10-

692

Green Island 12 0.0 0 0 100 0 no 10 4 Fee Title

any Michigan 

Islands 

LH5-202 Charity 

Island 17 0.0 0 98 2 0 no 16 38 Fee Title

any Michigan 

Islands 

LH6-326 Scarecrow 

Island 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 no 0 9 Fee Title

any Michigan 

Islands 

LH7-351 Grass Island 5 0.0 0 0 100 0 no 1 11 Fee Title

any Michigan 

Islands 

LH7-358 Gull Island 15 0.0 0 0 100 0 no 10 23 Fee Title

any Michigan 

Islands 

LM10-

537

Rocky Island 26 0.0 0 0 4 96 no 11 33 Fee Title

any Green Bay 

LM10-

652

Shoal South 

of Martin Bay 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 no 0 30 Fee Title

any Green Bay 

LM10-

673

St Vitals 

Island Shoal 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 no 0 30 Fee Title

any Green Bay 

LM11-

501

Little Gull 

Island 10 0.0 0 0 100 0 no 13 8 Fee Title

any Green Bay 

LM11-

504

Gull Island 20 0.0 0 0 100 0 no 12 10 Fee Title

any Green Bay 

LM12-

675

Shoe Island 1 0.0 0 81 19 0 no 4 8 Fee Title

any Michigan 

Islands 

LH8-

1326

Round Island 376 0.0 0 99 1 0 no 110 33 Less-ThanFee Title any Michigan 

Islands 

LM11-

1446

Poverty 

Island 224 0.0 0 0 100 0 yes 53 35 Less-ThanFee Title any Green Bay 
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

193

TNC 

Complex 

Number

TNC 

Complex 

Name

Acres

Houses 

per Acre 

(year 

2000)

TNC 

Threat 

Score

Gov't 

Owned 

(%)

Private 

Owned 

(%)

NGO 

Owned 

(%)

Lighthouse

Elevation, 

from 

water 

surface 

(m) 

Miles 

to 

Closest 

NWR

Type of 

Protection

Type of 

Acquisition

NWR to 

Expand

LH9-

1309

Meade 

Island 162 0.0 2 0 100 0 no 24 8 Less-ThanFee Title any Michigan Islands 

Table C-4: Number of islands, acres, and privately owned acres for all Great Lakes islands (within the United States) within 

the Initial Focus Area^ as well as the priority islands

Number of Islands Acres Privately Owned (Acres)

All Islands (Within the United States) in Initial Focus Area^ 1,093 282,820 93,502

Priority Islands 63 31,426 11,264

^See figure C-1.
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

194

Table C-5: Major (and generally common) habitat types found on some of the priority islands for the expansion of Green 

Bay and Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuges

General Island Areas

Major Habitat Types

Temperate 

Broadleaf 

Forest

Broadleaf 

Deciduous 

Forest

Woody 

Wetlands

Coniferous 

Forest

Beaches Shrub / 

Scrub

Grasslands Sand Plain 

Mixed 

Forests

Limestone 

Plain 

Coniferous 

Forests

Emergent 

Herbaceous 

Wetlands

Rock

Green Bay area 

(Peshtigo Harbor East 

Bay Islands)

X X X X

Mackinac and Eastern 

Door County area 

(Garden, Hog, High, 

Waugoshance and 

Rock Islands

X X X X

Manitou and Fox 

Islands area (South 

Manitou, North Fox and 

South Fox Islands)

X X

Lake Huron northern 

coast area (Saint 

Martin, Marquette, and 

Waugoshance Point 

Islands)

X X X

Saginaw Bay area 

(Charity, North and 

Maisou Islands)

X X X X X

Lake Huron northwest

coast area (Round 

Island)

X X X
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

195

Attachment 1: Attributes for the seven largest and more highly developed islands as well as Shelter Island (environmental 

contaminant site) that are not considered a priority but would have acquisition considered on a case by case basis (see figure C-1). 

TNC 

Complex 

Number

TNC Complex 

Name

Houghton's 

Goldenrod

Dwarf 

Lake Iris

Pitcher's 

Thistle

Hine's 

Emerald 

Dragonfly

Hine's 

Emerald 

Dragonfly 

Critical 

Habitat

Piping 

Plover

Eastern 

Massasauga 

Rattlesnake

Key

Ecological 

Systems 

(#)

Colonial 

Nesting 

Waterbird

(AOU 

code)

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern

(AOU code)

LS5-1410 Sugar Island no no no no no no no 2 COTE BAEA

LM13-

1271

North Manitou 

Island no no yes no no yes no 2 BAEA

LS5-1416 Neebish Island no no no no no no no 3 COTE, 

BLTE BAEA

LM12-

1442 Beaver Island yes yes yes no no yes no 2 AMBI, BAEA

LH8-1327 Bois Blanc Island yes yes yes yes yes no yes 2 AMB, IBAEA

LM10-

1459

Washington 

Island no yes no yes yes no no 3 UPSA

GB6-1305 Drummond Island no yes no no no no no 3 BLTE AMBI, BAEA, 

YERA

LH5-1341 Shelter Island no no no no no no no 0 COTE, 

BCNH

TNC 

Complex 

Number

TNC Complex Name Acres Houses per Acre 

(year 2000)

TNC Threat 

Score

Gov't 

Owned 

(%)

Private 

Owned 

(%)

NGO 

Owned 

(%)

Lighthouse

Elevation, 

from water 

surface (m) 

Miles to 

Closest 

NWR

LS5-1410 Sugar Island 31,574 1.9 572 0 90 10 no 322 25

LM13-

1271

North Manitou Island 14,415 0.0 1 100 0 0 no 409 38

LS5-1416 Neebish Island 13,768 0.6 142 0 100 0 no 127 21

LM12-

1442

Beaver Island 36,787 4.7 686 34 66 0 yes 215 3

LH8-1327 Bois Blanc Island 23,660 1.8 355 30 69 1 yes 112 34

LM10-

1459

Washington Island 14,362 1.9 491 0 100 0 yes 175 27

GB6-1305 Drummond Island 83,258 2.2 730 55 44 2 no 184 1

LH5-1341 Shelter Island 292 0.0 0 0 100 0 no 29 18
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

196

Attachment 2: Attributes for all other islands within the Initial focus Area (see figure C-1).

TNC 

Complex 

Number

TNC Complex 

Name Acres

Houses 

per Acre 

(year 

2000)

TNC 

Threat 

Score

Gov't 

Owned 

(%)

Private 

Owned 

(%)

NGO 

Owned 

(%)

Lighthouse

Elevation, 

from water 

surface (m)

Miles 

to 

Closest 

NWR

Key 

Ecological 

Systems 

(#)

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern (AOU 

code)

LH9-885 Adelaide Island 6 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 6 20 0

LS5-1067 Advance Island 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 19 2

LM10-399 Adventure Island 34 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 5 10 1

LS11-

1141 Agate Point 6 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 7 1

GB6-950 Andrews Island 14 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 3 1 0

GB6-1428 Ashman Island 62 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 7 2 1

LH6-214 Au Gres Coastal 

Marsh 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 14 0

LS9-1384 Au Train Island 102 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 33 36 0 BAEA

GB6-952 Bacon Island 4 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 4 4 1

LH4-223 Bald Eagle Point 5 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 2 1 0

GB6-1429 Bald Island 75 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 22 0 0

LM9-725 Bass Islands 24 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 40 2

LS5-1004 Bass Reef Island 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 17 2

LM2-312 Basset Island 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 4 2

GB6-940 Bay Island 3 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 3 0

LS7-1077 Bay Mills Point 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 52 0

LH10-834 Bear Island 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 13 2

LM13-491 Beaver Archipelago 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 22 0

LM13-492 Beaver Archipelago 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 16 1

LM13-485 Beaver Archipelago 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 48 0

LM13-481 Beaver Archipelago 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 52 1

LH10-

1315 Beaver Tail Point 42 0.0 3 0 100 0 No 3 20 2

LS6-829 Bellevue Island 74 0.0 0 0 63 37 No 10 10 0

LM2-376 Bellow Island 5 0.0 2 0 6 94 No 4 2 0

LM10-464 Big Susie Island 17 0.2 3 0 100 0 No 1 16 1

GB6-1431 Big Trout Island 96 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 19 4 1

LH10-844 Birch Island 14 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 4 38 2

LH10-

1321 Boot Island 138 0.0 2 0 48 52 No 9 24 2

LH9-794 Bootjack Island 8 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 3 28 2

GB6-1432 Boulanger Island 48 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 16 0 0

GB6-927 Bow Island 7 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 4 0 1

LH10-880 Burnham Island 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 27 2

LH4-237 Burnt Cabin Point 17 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 4 47 0

GB6-1418 Burnt Island 433 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 17 3 2 BAEA

LH10-860 Bush Bay Island 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 19 2

LM9-699 Butlers Island 8 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 65 0

GB6-983 Butterfield Island 35 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 7 30 0 BAEA

GB6-1427 Cass Island 87 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 3 5 1

GB6-1420 Cedar Island 69 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 7 1 1 BAEA
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

197

TNC 

Complex 

Number

TNC Complex 

Name Acres

Houses 

per Acre 

(year 

2000)

TNC 

Threat 

Score

Gov't 

Owned 

(%)

Private 

Owned 

(%)

NGO 

Owned 

(%)

Lighthouse

Elevation, 

from water 

surface (m)

Miles 

to 

Closest 

NWR

Key 

Ecological 

Systems 

(#)

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern (AOU 

code)

LM10-

1455 Chambers Island 2,820 0.7 55 0 100 0 Yes 18 29 3 BAEA

GB6-993 Cherry Island 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 3 1 1

LH10-

1318 Coryell Island 100 0.0 3 0 100 0 No 8 25 2

LH9-875 Cove Island 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 14 0

LH10-836 Cove Island 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 15 2

LS6-817 Crab Island 5 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 58 0

LH7-1329 Crooked Island 126 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 4 4 2

LH10-820 Crow Island 3 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 3 19 2

LS6-855 Small island in 

Whitney Bay 0 0.2 0 0 100 0 No 0 56 0

LS6-866 Duck Island 21 0.5 6 0 100 0 No 7 25 1

LH10-814 Eagle Island 5 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 32 2

LS5-999 Edward Island 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 3 31 2

LM12-923 Epoufette Island 6 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 2 17 0

LH9-1313 Espanore Island 131 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 7 7 1 BAEA

GB6-884 Fairbank Island 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 3 0

LM11-483 Fish Island 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 32 0

LM1-427 Fisherman Island 11 0.0 0 58 42 0 No 3 9 1

LM11-479 Fisherman Shoal 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 39 0

LH4-229 Flat Rock Point 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 49 0

LS6-865 Frying Pan Island 4 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 55 2

LS6-1311 Garden Island 42 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 10 15 0

LS9-1392 Garlic Island 6 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 27 0

LS5-1078 Gem Island 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 19 2

LH10-870 Goat Island 3 0.0 2 0 100 0 No 0 8 2

LH10-

1320 Government Island 224 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 11 26 2

LS9-1382 Grand Island 13,563 0.4 12 100 0 0 Yes 120 19 3 BAEA

LS9-1386 Granite Island 5 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 27 0

GB6-1430 Grape Island 83 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 13 1 1

LH9-741 Gravel Island 23 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 4 9 1 BAEA

LM11-424 Gravel Island 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 50 2

LM12-969 Gravel Island 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 2 0

LM11-507 Gravelly Island 4 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 2 12 0

LH10-779 Gravelly Island 8 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 4 18 2

LM10-

1454 Green Island 55 0.0 2 0 100 0 Yes 7 14 1

LM13-

1268 Gull Island 247 0.0 0 98 2 0 No 8 0 0 BAEA

GB6-924 Gull Island 18 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 7 1 0

LH8-572 Gull Island 8 0.0 3 0 100 0 No 0 24 0

LH5-109 Gull Island 3 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 12 2
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

198

TNC 

Complex 

Number

TNC Complex 

Name Acres

Houses 

per Acre 

(year 

2000)

TNC 

Threat 

Score

Gov't 

Owned 

(%)

Private 

Owned 

(%)

NGO 

Owned 

(%)

Lighthouse

Elevation, 

from water 

surface (m)

Miles 

to 

Closest 

NWR

Key 

Ecological 

Systems 

(#)

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern (AOU 

code)

LS6-1023 Gull Island 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 20 2

LS10-

1128 Gull Rock 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 Yes 1 30 0

GB6-1000 Harris Island 23 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 5 3 0

LS5-989 Hart Island 19 0.0 0 99 1 0 No 3 32 2

LM12-684 Hat Island 15 0.0 0 93 7 0 No 2 24 0

LM10-382 Hat Island 5 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 3 1

LH10-873 Haven Island 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 24 2

LH5-1335 Heisterman Island 570 0.0 0 99 1 0 No 5 10 4 BAEA

LS5-1057 Hen and Chicken 

Islands 32 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 31 2

LM11-473 Hog Island 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 3 40 1

LH10-838 Holsinger Island 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 16 2

LM10-404 Horseshoe Island 30 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 9 3 1

GB6-921 Howard Island 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 1 0

LS10-

1114

Huron NWR - Gull 

Island and Others 14 0.0 0 90 10 0 No 13 46 0 BAEA

LS10-

1110

Huron NWR - Island 

off McIntyre Island 0 0.0 0 34 66 0 No 1 47 0

LS10-

1109

Huron NWR - Island 

off Lighthouse Island 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 47 0

LS10-

1108

Huron NWR - Islands 

next to Lighthouse 

Islands

10 0.0 0 72 28 0 No 25 1 0 BAEA

LS10-

1113

Huron NWR -

Lighthouse Island 44 0.0 1 86 14 0 Yes 44 43 0

LS10-

1112

Huron NWR -

McIntyre Island 81 0.0 0 93 7 0 No 51 46 0

LH10-816 Huron Point 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 3 2

LS7-1088 Iroquois Island 6 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 2 6 0

LS5-1086 Island Number Four 8 0.0 1 0 100 0 No 3 27 2

LS5-1413 Island Number One 

(East) 69 0.0 1 0 100 0 No 4 37 2

LS5-1415 Island Number One 

(West) 53 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 3 37 2

LS5-1414 Island Number Two 60 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 4 37 2

GB6-949 James Island 30 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 7 2 1

GB6-951 Jim Island 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 1 0

LS6-858 Jones Island 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 55 0

LH10-

1314 La Salle Island 1,037 0.0 1 0 100 0 No 23 27 2

LS9-1390 Larus Island 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 11 58 0

LH10-876 Avery Point Island 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 27 2

LH10-868 Horse Rock Point 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 24 2
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

199

TNC 

Complex 

Number

TNC Complex 

Name Acres

Houses 

per Acre 

(year 

2000)

TNC 

Threat 

Score

Gov't 

Owned 

(%)

Private 

Owned 

(%)

NGO 

Owned 

(%)

Lighthouse

Elevation, 

from water 

surface (m)

Miles 

to 

Closest 

NWR

Key 

Ecological 

Systems 

(#)

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern (AOU 

code)

Island

LH10-770 Island south of 

Bosely Channel 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 2 2

LH10-864 Island off of White 

Loon Island 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 2 19 2

LS5-1421 Lime Island 908 0.0 1 99 1 0 No 33 10 2 BAEA

LH5-209 Little Charity Island 3 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 33 0

LM12-959 Little Hog Island 3 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 2 25 0

LM12-653 Little Island 14 0.0 0 99 1 0 No 3 6 0

LH10-832 Little Island 3 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 2 37 2

LS9-1391 Little Presque Isle 10 0.0 0 67 33 0 No 0 37 0

LH10-749 Little Saint Martin 

Island 3 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 27 2

LM10-

1444 Little Summer Island 590 0.0 0 17 83 0 No 16 18 2 BAEA

GB6-938 Little Trout Island 8 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 4 8 0

LH5-139 Lone Tree Island 5 0.0 0 94 6 0 No 2 46 2

LH9-1310 Long Island 43 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 10 6 0

GB6-977 Long Island 18 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 9 30 1

LH10-

1319 Long Island 70 0.0 3 0 100 0 No 4 32 2

LM9-1451 Long Tail Point 79 0.0 0 0 100 0 Yes 0 65 1 BAEA

LS5-1001 Love Island 10 0.0 0 91 9 0 No 3 16 2 BAEA

LH10-

1325 Mackinac Island 2,366 11.4 335 96 4 0 No 99 31 1

GB6-1423 Macomb Island 232 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 25 4 1

LH5-146 Maisou Island 1 0.0 0 67 33 0 No 2 2 2

LS20-

1267 Manitou Island 1,033 0.0 3 30 61 9 No 7 35 1 BAEA

GB6-1426 Maple Island 124 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 17 3 1

LM2-1449 Marion Island 199 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 47 32 2 BAEA

LM9-379 Mekaunee Shoal 22 0.2 0 0 100 0 No 0 17 1

LH5-1336 Middle Grounds 

Island - North 154 0.0 1 97 3 0 No 2 11 2

LH5-1338 Middle Grounds 

Island - South 167 0.0 0 99 1 0 No 2 12 2

LH7-1328 Middle Island 280 0.0 1 12 88 0 Yes 5 11 1 BAEA

LS9-1987 Middle Island 12 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 19 25 0

LS6-1047 Moon Island 53 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 38 2

LH10-882 Mortsen Point and 

Mill Pond Peninsula 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 2 27 2

LS6-1044 Munuscong Island 26 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 36 2

LS7-1087 Naomikong Island 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 54 0

LM12-966 Naubinway Island 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 8 0
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

200

TNC 

Complex 

Number

TNC Complex 

Name Acres

Houses 

per Acre 

(year 

2000)

TNC 

Threat 

Score

Gov't 

Owned 

(%)

Private 

Owned 

(%)

NGO 

Owned 

(%)

Lighthouse

Elevation, 

from water 

surface (m)

Miles 

to 

Closest 

NWR

Key 

Ecological 

Systems 

(#)

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern (AOU 

code)

LH5-1339 Nayanquing Point 68 0.0 3 100 0 0 No 1 48 2

GB6-1003 Norris Island 6 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 4 8 0

LH4-224 Orion Rock 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 2 0

LH4-213 Oscube Point 3 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 54 0

LS9-1385 Partridge Island 93 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 67 38 0 BAEA

GB6-1422 Peck Island 54 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 13 2 0 BAEA

LH10-767 Penny Island 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 2 2

LS10-

1107 Pequaming Point 1 0.0 2 0 100 0 No 1 30 0

LM9-1452 Peshtigo Harbor 

Peninsula 113 0.0 2 94 6 0 No 1 31 2

LH9-808 Peters Island 6 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 19 2

GB6-886 Picnic Island 7 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 4 3 0

LS9-1393 Picnic Rocks 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 10 9 0

LS6-1028 Pilot Island 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 60 2

LS6-1027 Pine Island 4 0.0 1 0 100 0 No 3 7 2

LS6-893 Pipe Island 15 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 5 24 2

LS6-903 Pipe Island Twins 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 2 53 2

LM10-403 Pirate Island 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 3 1

LM12-626 Pismire Island 2 0.0 2 89 11 0 No 0 3 0

LH5-134 Pitchers Reef 9 0.0 1 0 100 0 No 2 46 2

LS11-

1137 Porters Island 19 0.0 0 66 34 0 No 0 24 1

LS9-1388 Presque Isle Point 

Rocks 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 14 0

GB6-979 Propeller Island 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 2 0

LM10-322 Quarry Point 7 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 12 1

LM10-314 Rileys Point 22 0.0 3 0 100 0 No 5 27 1

LM11-

1463 Rock Island 975 0.0 2 97 3 0 Yes 65 26 2 BAEA

LS5-1071 Rock Island 2 0.0 2 0 100 0 No 2 18 2

LH10-874 Roger Island 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 5 25 2

GB6-932 Rogg Island 67 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 7 0 1

LH7-372 Round Island 24 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 3 4 2

LS5-1009 Round Island 9 0.0 0 0 100 0 Yes 10 40 2

LS5-1081 Round Island 8 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 8 12 0

LH10-828 Rover Island 18 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 3 30 2

GB6-1424 Rultand Island 72 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 23 2 1

LH10-

1433 Saint Helena Island 288 0.0 0 0 5 95 Yes 7 0 0 BAEA

LH10-871 Saint Ledger Island 13 0.0 3 0 100 0 No 3 10 2

LM10-

1448

Saint Martin Island -

Northwest 1,358 0.0 0 0 100 0 Yes 53 10 1 BAEA

LM10-681 Saint Vital Island 23 0.0 0 96 4 0 No 3 4 0
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

201

TNC 

Complex 

Number

TNC Complex 

Name Acres

Houses 

per Acre 

(year 

2000)

TNC 

Threat 

Score

Gov't 

Owned 

(%)

Private 

Owned 

(%)

NGO 

Owned 

(%)

Lighthouse

Elevation, 

from water 

surface (m)

Miles 

to 

Closest 

NWR

Key 

Ecological 

Systems 

(#)

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern (AOU 

code)

GB6-907 Sam Island 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 3 1 0

LM9-602 Sand Island 30 0.0 3 0 100 0 Yes 1 21 0

GB6-913 Seastone Point 2 0.0 3 0 100 0 No 3 3 1

LS11-

1125 Sevenmile Point 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 18 0

LH1-1312 Shelter Island 67 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 3 12 0

LH9-775 Silver Island 9 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 3 3 0

LM10-318 Snake Island 23 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 46 2

LM10-590 Snake Island 9 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 30 0

LM10-466 Snake Island 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 2 1

LM11-410 Spider Island 18 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 4 52 2

LM12-

1434 Squaw Island 75 0.0 0 0 100 0 Yes 7 8 1

GB6-925 Squaw Island 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 3 0

GB6-962 Staltonstall Island 22 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 5 2 1

GB6-965 Standerson Island 24 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 2 2 0

LS6-1033 Steamboat Island 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 59 2

LH7-353 Stony Point 4 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 0 1

LS6-830 Strawberry Island 5 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 58 2

LH10-

1317 Strongs Island 100 0.0 3 0 100 0 No 7 24 2

LH7-1331 Sugar Island 192 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 6 0 1 BAEA

LH7-1332 Sulphur Island 82 0.0 2 0 100 0 No 3 6 0 BAEA

LS6-847 Surgeon Island 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 3 10 0

GB6-914 Surveyors Island 10 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 9 0 0

LS7-1096 Tahquamenon Island 2 0.0 2 0 100 0 No 1 54 0

LS10-

1381 Traverse Island 91 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 15 36 0 BAEA

LM12-

1441 Trout Island 85 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 4 8 0

LS5-1019 Twin Island 2 0.0 2 0 100 0 No 0 19 2

GB6-984 Twin Sister Island 3 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 3 0

LS5-1040 Two Tree Island 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 15 2

LH10-747 Voight Bay Islands 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 20 2

LM12-

1440 Whisky Island 90 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 6 8 1 BAEA

LH10-862 White Loon Island 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 19 2

LS9-1091 Williams Island 32 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 6 14 0 BAEA

GB6-891 Willoughby Island 3 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 2 0

GB6-1419 Wilson Island 163 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 10 2 1

LS9-1383 Wood Island 196 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 21 14 0 BAEA

GB6-919 Wreck Island 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 2 1 0

GB6-883 Young Island 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 6 0

LM9-341 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 17 1 YERA
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

202

TNC 

Complex 

Number

TNC Complex 

Name Acres

Houses 

per Acre 

(year 

2000)

TNC 

Threat 

Score

Gov't 

Owned 

(%)

Private 

Owned 

(%)

NGO 

Owned 

(%)

Lighthouse

Elevation, 

from water 

surface (m)

Miles 

to 

Closest 

NWR

Key 

Ecological 

Systems 

(#)

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern (AOU 

code)

LH5-1340 108 0.0 1 100 0 0 No 3 21 2

LS5-1411 81 0.0 1 0 100 0 No 11 33 0

LM9-1450 70 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 3 65 2

LS5-1093 47 0.0 2 0 100 0 No 10 24 0

LM9-294 41 0.0 1 95 5 0 No 1 25 0

LS5-1083 38 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 21 0

LH9-784 34 0.0 2 0 100 0 No 7 31 0

LS6-1045 29 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 38 2

LM9-278 28 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 34 1

LM9-273 27 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 14 1

LS5-1059 25 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 38 2

LS5-1085 25 0.0 1 0 100 0 No 3 25 2

LS5-1098 19 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 26 2

LH4-236 16 0.0 1 0 100 0 No 4 47 0

LM10-320 15 1.5 9 0 100 0 No 2 25 1

LH7-346 14 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 2 1

LM9-328 14 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 2 7 0

LS5-1062 13 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 17 2

LS5-1051 12 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 39 2

LH5-198 12 0.0 0 35 65 0 No 1 16 2

LH10-856 12 0.0 0 0 14 86 No 3 8 2

LH5-171 11 0.0 1 0 100 0 No 2 25 2

LS6-1048 11 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 39 2

LM9-339 10 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 15 1

LH10-787 10 0.0 1 0 100 0 No 0 16 2

LM9-282 10 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 8 1

LH5-149 10 0.0 0 94 6 0 No 2 19 2

LM9-563 10 0.0 0 57 43 0 No 1 68 3

LH10-869 9 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 3 7 2

LH5-147 8 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 33 2

LM11-364 8 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 2 2

LM9-285 8 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 25 1

LH4-156 8 0.0 0 0 100 0 Yes 1 23 0

LH10-901 8 0.0 0 50 50 0 No 0 8 2

LM10-474 7 0.4 1 0 100 0 No 1 15 1

LH4-168 7 0.2 0 0 100 0 No 0 60 0

LS11-

1138 6 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 10 16 1

LS6-1041 6 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 58 2

LH4-228 6 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 2 0

LH1-720 6 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 0 0

LH5-152 5 0.0 1 0 100 0 No 1 2 2

LH5-153 5 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 2 3 2

LH10-598 5 0.0 0 16 84 0 No 0 3 3
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

203

TNC 

Complex 

Number

TNC Complex 

Name Acres

Houses 

per Acre 

(year 

2000)

TNC 

Threat 

Score

Gov't 

Owned 

(%)

Private 

Owned 

(%)

NGO 

Owned 

(%)

Lighthouse

Elevation, 

from water 

surface (m)

Miles 

to 

Closest 

NWR

Key 

Ecological 

Systems 

(#)

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern (AOU 

code)

LH4-234 5 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 4 8 0

GB6-998 5 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 21 1

LH10-588 5 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 1 2

LS5-1058 4 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 36 2

LH9-735 4 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 6 0

LH7-348 4 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 2 1

LM12-948 4 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 2 36 1

LH10-709 4 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 25 2

LM12-630 4 0.0 1 0 100 0 No 0 1 0

LH5-200 4 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 3 15 0

LH5-175 4 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 2 24 2

LH5-182 4 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 35 1

LS5-1094 4 0.0 2 0 100 0 No 0 0 2

LH4-231 4 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 49 0

LH5-143 4 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 2 12 2

LM11-433 4 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 43 1

LS10-

1104 4 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 11 1

LM12-718 3 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 3 0

LS5-1065 3 0.0 1 0 100 0 No 3 17 2

LH9-758 3 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 36 0

GB6-992 3 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 23 1

LS5-1054 3 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 26 2

LH4-113 3 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 7 0

LS5-1053 3 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 31 2

LM9-722 3 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 3 60 2

LH5-137 3 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 2 46 2

LM9-672 3 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 65 0

LH4-174 3 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 60 0

LH10-843 3 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 3 32 2

LH4-203 3 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 1 0

LS5-1079 2 0.0 2 0 100 0 No 0 20 2

LM12-723 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 23 0

LM11-381 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 55 2

LH7-373 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 5 3

LS11-

1136 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 16 0

LS5-1011 2 0.0 0 94 6 0 No 0 18 2

LS6-1043 2 0.0 0 99 1 0 No 0 31 2

LH5-158 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 2 23 2

LM9-275 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 2 1

LH10-712 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 5 2

GB6-970 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 2 0

LM9-277 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 2 1
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

204

TNC 

Complex 

Number

TNC Complex 

Name Acres

Houses 

per Acre 

(year 

2000)

TNC 

Threat 

Score

Gov't 

Owned 

(%)

Private 

Owned 

(%)

NGO 

Owned 

(%)

Lighthouse

Elevation, 

from water 

surface (m)

Miles 

to 

Closest 

NWR

Key 

Ecological 

Systems 

(#)

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern (AOU 

code)

LS11-

1142 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 18 1

LH5-161 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 20 2

LH4-232 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 10 0

LH10-822 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 3 2

LH5-112 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 47 2

LH5-118 2 0.2 0 0 100 0 No 0 14 2

LM11-414 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 51 2

LH5-151 2 0.0 0 81 19 0 No 0 30 2

LM12-945 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 52 2

LH10-693 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 2 1

LS6-912 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 52 2

LS5-1097 2 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 27 2

LH8-460 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 29 0

LS5-1082 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 20 0

LH9-793 1 0.0 0 91 9 0 No 0 14 2

LH7-360 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 5 1

LS10-

1105 1 0.0 1 0 100 0 No 0 7 1

LS6-819 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 57 2

LH9-748 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 11 1

LH5-144 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 2 46 2

LM9-287 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 8 1

LH5-170 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 32 2

LH7-342 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 10 1

LM12-585 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 26 0

LM10-456 1 0.0 3 0 100 0 No 1 11 1

LS11-

1134 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 15 0

LH5-150 1 0.0 0 88 12 0 No 2 30 2

GB6-1008 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 2 0

LH9-755 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 24 0

LH9-840 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 54 0

LM10-705 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 32 0

LM12-647 1 0.0 0 96 4 0 No 0 1 0

LH10-888 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 7 3

LS6-906 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 24 2

LH4-131 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 38 0

LH4-218 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 17 0

LS5-1073 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 19 2

LM11-506 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 12 0

LH5-140 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 2 46 2

LM2-319 1 0.0 0 4 96 0 No 0 1 2

LS5-1063 1 0.0 1 0 100 0 No 3 17 2
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

205

TNC 

Complex 

Number

TNC Complex 

Name Acres

Houses 

per Acre 

(year 

2000)

TNC 

Threat 

Score

Gov't 

Owned 

(%)

Private 

Owned 

(%)

NGO 

Owned 

(%)

Lighthouse

Elevation, 

from water 

surface (m)

Miles 

to 

Closest 

NWR

Key 

Ecological 

Systems 

(#)

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern (AOU 

code)

LH7-366 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 4 1

LM13-560 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 10 0

LH5-148 1 0.0 0 81 19 0 No 2 3 2

LM1-405 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 7 0

LM1-406 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 35 0

LM10-363 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 31 1

LH5-172 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 2 33 2

LM9-688 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 18 0

LH4-201 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 1 0

LH5-135 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 33 2

LM12-522 1 0.0 0 95 5 0 No 0 1 0

LH5-173 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 2 31 2

LH5-154 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 24 2

LH5-159 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 26 2

LH7-383 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 6 0

LM11-511 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 5 1

GB6-972 1 0.0 0 76 24 0 No 1 28 1

LS5-1070 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 18 2

LM10-541 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 3 0

LS5-1095 1 0.0 3 0 100 0 No 0 2 2

LS11-

1143 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 13 0

LS11-

1135 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 18 0

LS5-1072 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 19 2

LH10-867 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 2 21 2

LM9-290 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 8 0

LH5-104 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 2 14 2

LH4-123 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 37 0

LS6-1020 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 4 2

LS5-1069 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 18 2

LS5-1017 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 19 2

LM11-594 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 6 0

LS5-1060 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 17 2

LM10-370 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 12 1

LM9-340 1 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 16 1

LS11-

1133 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 18 0

LS5-1089 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 2 0

LH5-165 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 2 22 2

LH4-177 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 25 0

LM12-941 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 10 0

LH4-233 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 4 9 0

LH9-771 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 2 0
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

206

TNC 

Complex 

Number

TNC Complex 

Name Acres

Houses 

per Acre 

(year 

2000)

TNC 

Threat 

Score

Gov't 

Owned 

(%)

Private 

Owned 

(%)

NGO 

Owned 

(%)

Lighthouse

Elevation, 

from water 

surface (m)

Miles 

to 

Closest 

NWR

Key 

Ecological 

Systems 

(#)

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern (AOU 

code)

LS5-1056 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 17 2

LH4-183 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 36 0

LH9-756 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 24 0

LH7-338 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 3 0

LS6-1046 0 0.0 0 70 30 0 No 0 33 2

LS11-

1146 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 17 0

LS5-1015 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 18 2

LM10-324 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 33 1

GB6-994 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 29 1

LH8-591 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 25 0

LM10-310 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 5 1

GB6-929 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 0 1

LM9-711 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 15 0

LS11-

1140 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 17 1

LH4-187 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 17 0

LH5-157 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 2 20 2

GB6-971 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 1 0

LM11-411 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 51 2

LH7-357 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 4 0

LS5-1092 0 0.0 3 0 100 0 No 0 1 2

LS5-1055 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 17 2

LM9-279 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 37 1

LS10-

1106 0 0.0 1 0 100 0 No 0 29 1

LS6-1021 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 2 2

LS5-1084 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 2 20 2

LH4-181 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 21 0

LS5-1049 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 18 2

LS5-1061 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 17 2

LH7-345 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 4 0

LS11-

1132 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 18 1

LH7-365 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 5 1

LH7-402 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 5 0

LS5-1052 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 18 3

LS11-

1147 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 17 1

LM11-455 0 0.0 2 0 100 0 No 0 43 1

LH10-825 0 0.0 2 0 100 0 No 0 14 2

LH10-908 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 7 2

LH4-185 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 14 0

LH8-446 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 31 0
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

207

TNC 

Complex 

Number

TNC Complex 

Name Acres

Houses 

per Acre 

(year 

2000)

TNC 

Threat 

Score

Gov't 

Owned 

(%)

Private 

Owned 

(%)

NGO 

Owned 

(%)

Lighthouse

Elevation, 

from water 

surface (m)

Miles 

to 

Closest 

NWR

Key 

Ecological 

Systems 

(#)

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern (AOU 

code)

LH5-163 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 2 19 2

LM10-582 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 24 1

LH9-781 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 22 2

LS5-1074 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 38 2

LH4-217 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 Yes 2 14 0

LM12-659 0 0.0 0 94 6 0 No 0 35 0

LM10-391 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 3 1

LH10-877 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 26 2

LS5-1080 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 20 2

LH5-164 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 28 2

LS5-1064 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 17 2

LH5-155 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 1 37 2

LM11-509 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 1 0

LH4-141 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 34 0

LS11-

1144 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 16 0

LS5-1075 0 0.0 2 0 100 0 No 0 21 2

LM7-64 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 0 0

GB6-1002 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 8 1

GB6-987 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 1 0

LH5-132 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 32 2

LH7-367 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 8 0

LS11-

1139 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 18 1

LM9-283 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 7 1

LS5-1066 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 2 18 2

LM11-428 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 48 2

LS9-1389 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 20 0

LS10-

1111 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 31 0

LH8-465 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 30 1

LH4-190 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 52 0

LS5-1068 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 18 2

LH6-321 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 6 1

LH4-191 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 50 0

LM11-450 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 32 1

LM12-624 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 11 0

LM12-564 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 4 0

LM12-656 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 6 0

LM12-573 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 7 0

LM12-567 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 13 1

LM12-674 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 31 1

LM12-635 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 2 0

LM12-596 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 28 2
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

208

TNC 

Complex 

Number

TNC Complex 

Name Acres

Houses 

per Acre 

(year 

2000)

TNC 

Threat 

Score

Gov't 

Owned 

(%)

Private 

Owned 

(%)

NGO 

Owned 

(%)

Lighthouse

Elevation, 

from water 

surface (m)

Miles 

to 

Closest 

NWR

Key 

Ecological 

Systems 

(#)

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern (AOU 

code)

LM12-570 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 1 0

LM10-528 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 7 0

LM11-526 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 18 0

LM2-327 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 17 2

LM11-269 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 6 0

LS5-1022 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 7 2

LM12-973 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 35 0

LM12-934 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 34 0

LM12-918 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 32 0

LM12-831 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 2 0

LM11-697 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 8 0

LM12-682 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 18 0

LM12-645 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 3 1

LM12-639 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 3 0

LM12-610 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 0 2

LM11-605 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 32 0

LM12-583 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 4 0

LM12-581 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 3 0

LM12-578 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 3 0

LM12-576 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 3 0

LM12-558 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 12 0

LM10-531 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 7 0

LM11-525 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 29 0

LM11-523 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 22 0

LM11-521 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 24 0

LM1-497 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 7 0

LM11-490 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 18 1

LM11-486 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 0 1

LM1-469 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 3 0

LM11-458 0 0.0 2 0 100 0 No 0 19 1

LM11-452 0 0.0 2 0 100 0 No 0 11 1

LM11-451 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 5 1

LM1-432 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 15 0

LM11-440 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 11 1

LM1-407 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 26 0

LM11-408 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 16 2

LM2-334 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 32 2

LS20-

1120 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 11 0

LS20-

1119 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 24 0

LS5-1042 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 29 2

LS6-1039 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 21 2

LS5-1036 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 11 2
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

209

TNC 

Complex 

Number

TNC Complex 

Name Acres

Houses 

per Acre 

(year 

2000)

TNC 

Threat 

Score

Gov't 

Owned 

(%)

Private 

Owned 

(%)

NGO 

Owned 

(%)

Lighthouse

Elevation, 

from water 

surface (m)

Miles 

to 

Closest 

NWR

Key 

Ecological 

Systems 

(#)

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern (AOU 

code)

LS6-1035 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 58 2

LS5-1032 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 17 2

LS5-1034 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 10 2

LS6-1031 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 47 2

LS6-1024 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 19 2

LS6-1030 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 88 2

LS6-1029 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 16 2

LS5-1025 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 6 2

LS5-1026 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 10 2

LS5-1018 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 7 2

LS5-1016 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 8 2

LS5-1013 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 6 2

GB6-1010 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 35 0

LS5-1012 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 10 2

GB6-1007 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 6 0

LS5-1005 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 16 2

LM12-991 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 14 0

LM12-988 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 11 0

GB6-1006 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 34 0

LS5-997 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 12 2

GB6-995 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 0 1

LM12-990 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 11 0

LM12-982 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 35 0

LM12-985 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 11 0

LM12-978 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 35 0

GB6-996 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 11 1

LM12-981 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 35 0

LM12-975 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 35 0

GB6-974 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 23 0

GB6-986 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 37 0

LM12-980 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 35 0

LS5-976 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 10 2

LM12-968 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 35 0

LM12-961 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 35 0

LM12-967 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 35 0

GB6-963 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 36 0

GB6-957 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 41 0

GB6-960 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 39 0

GB6-958 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 39 0

GB6-956 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 38 0

GB6-953 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 42 0

GB6-955 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 39 0

GB6-947 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 37 1

LM12-946 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 35 0
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

210

TNC 

Complex 

Number

TNC Complex 

Name Acres

Houses 

per Acre 

(year 

2000)

TNC 

Threat 

Score

Gov't 

Owned 

(%)

Private 

Owned 

(%)

NGO 

Owned 

(%)

Lighthouse

Elevation, 

from water 

surface (m)

Miles 

to 

Closest 

NWR

Key 

Ecological 

Systems 

(#)

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern (AOU 

code)

LM12-943 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 36 1

LM12-933 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 67 0

LM12-936 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 36 1

LS6-926 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 0 2

LM12-922 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 38 0

GB6-931 0 0.0 3 0 100 0 No 0 34 0

LH10-915 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 31 2

LH10-928 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 31 2

LM12-935 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 35 0

GB6-930 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 34 0

GB6-909 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 28 0

GB6-937 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 38 0

LH10-920 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 31 2

GB6-910 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 25 0

LS6-905 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 0 2

LM12-902 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 26 0

GB6-911 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 29 0

LM12-898 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 26 0

GB6-916 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 27 0

LH10-900 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 32 2

GB6-904 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 23 0

LH10-896 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 31 2

LH10-897 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 32 2

GB6-890 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 3 0

LM12-895 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 0 0

LH10-899 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 32 2

LM12-894 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 3 0

GB6-889 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 21 0

GB6-892 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 1 0

LH10-881 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 32 2

GB6-887 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 19 0

LH9-878 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 25 0

LH10-879 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 31 2

LH10-863 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 34 1

LH9-872 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 25 0

LH10-854 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 34 2

LH10-852 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 36 2

LH10-851 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 36 2

LH10-846 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 37 2

LM12-861 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 25 0

LM12-853 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 25 0

LM12-841 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 24 0

LS6-857 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 0 2

LH10-845 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 19 0
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

211

TNC 

Complex 

Number

TNC Complex 

Name Acres

Houses 

per Acre 

(year 

2000)

TNC 

Threat 

Score

Gov't 

Owned 

(%)

Private 

Owned 

(%)

NGO 

Owned 

(%)

Lighthouse

Elevation, 

from water 

surface (m)

Miles 

to 

Closest 

NWR

Key 

Ecological 

Systems 

(#)

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern (AOU 

code)

LH10-818 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 15 1

LM12-800 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 22 0

LM12-835 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 21 0

LM12-850 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 24 0

LH10-842 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 4 2

LM12-803 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 19 0

LH10-839 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 3 2

LH10-815 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 9 2

LH10-796 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 7 1

LH10-786 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 3 1

LH10-848 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 18 2

LH10-837 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 4 2

LM12-809 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 3 0

LH10-807 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 7 2

LH10-821 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 10 0

LM12-826 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 20 0

LH10-849 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 36 2

LM12-811 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 20 0

LH10-813 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 2 2

LH10-802 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 12 2

LH10-812 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 7 2

LM12-823 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 3 0

LM12-795 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 31 0

LH10-833 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 4 2

LH10-810 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 14 2

LH10-792 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 9 2

LH10-788 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 13 2

LH10-805 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 10 2

LH10-827 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 6 2

LH10-798 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 8 1

LM11-780 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 38 0

LM12-801 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 20 0

LH9-804 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 19 2

LM12-790 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 47 0

LH9-774 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 20 2

LH9-785 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 20 2

LS6-806 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 20 2

LH9-782 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 14 0

LM12-797 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 31 0

LM12-799 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 31 0

LM12-783 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 61 0

LH10-789 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 7 2

LH10-777 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 18 2

LM11-776 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 36 0
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

212

TNC 

Complex 

Number

TNC Complex 

Name Acres

Houses 

per Acre 

(year 

2000)

TNC 

Threat 

Score

Gov't 

Owned 

(%)

Private 

Owned 

(%)

NGO 

Owned 

(%)

Lighthouse

Elevation, 

from water 

surface (m)

Miles 

to 

Closest 

NWR

Key 

Ecological 

Systems 

(#)

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern (AOU 

code)

LH10-764 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 1 2

LH10-762 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 9 2

LH9-778 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 19 0

LH10-763 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 11 2

LH10-761 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 10 2

LH9-772 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 19 2

LH10-760 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 0 2

LM12-791 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 31 0

LH10-743 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 13 2

LH10-765 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 1 2

LM12-769 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 62 0

LM12-768 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 63 0

LH10-759 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 0 2

LH9-739 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 15 0

LH9-746 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 3 2

LH9-754 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 19 2

LH9-744 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 17 0

LH10-740 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 8 2

LH9-753 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 19 0

LH9-757 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 19 0

LH9-752 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 19 0

LH10-736 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 13 2

LH9-766 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 20 0

LH9-726 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 22 0

LH10-750 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 0 2

LH10-738 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 8 2

LH10-729 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 7 2

LH9-745 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 2 0

LH9-737 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 18 0

LH9-742 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 14 0

LH9-734 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 39 0

LH9-730 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 21 0

LH9-733 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 24 0

LH9-732 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 54 0

LH9-731 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 20 0

LH9-728 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 21 0

LH9-727 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 21 0

LH9-724 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 25 0

LH9-721 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 25 0

LH10-707 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 7 2

LH10-714 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 7 0

LH10-708 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 8 0

LH1-716 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 8 0

LH9-717 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 25 0
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

213

TNC 

Complex 

Number

TNC Complex 

Name Acres

Houses 

per Acre 

(year 

2000)

TNC 

Threat 

Score

Gov't 

Owned 

(%)

Private 

Owned 

(%)

NGO 

Owned 

(%)

Lighthouse

Elevation, 

from water 

surface (m)

Miles 

to 

Closest 

NWR

Key 

Ecological 

Systems 

(#)

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern (AOU 

code)

LH10-710 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 8 0

LH1-715 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 11 0

LH10-702 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 8 0

LM12-706 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 64 0

LH10-703 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 8 0

LH9-713 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 27 0

LH10-704 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 8 2

LH10-701 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 8 0

LM11-700 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 36 0

LM12-694 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 67 0

LM11-698 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 37 0

LM12-691 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 66 0

LH10-695 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 8 0

LM12-690 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 22 0

LM11-696 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 32 0

LH10-689 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 8 0

LM12-686 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 17 0

LM12-687 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 29 0

LM12-685 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 17 0

LM12-683 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 17 0

LM12-679 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 58 0

LM12-676 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 0 1

LM12-680 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 0 0

LM12-677 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 58 0

LM12-667 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 28 0

LM12-668 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 29 0

LM12-664 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 27 0

LM12-661 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 52 0

LM12-670 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 30 0

LM12-663 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 53 0

LM12-671 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 28 0

LM11-669 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 38 0

LM12-658 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 36 0

LM12-666 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 5 0

LM12-660 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 34 0

LM10-678 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 3 0

LM12-648 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 4 0

LM12-662 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 51 0

LM12-657 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 36 0

LM12-644 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 1 0

LM12-654 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 37 0

LM11-655 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 14 0

LM10-665 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 5 0

LM12-651 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 40 0
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

214

TNC 

Complex 

Number

TNC Complex 

Name Acres

Houses 

per Acre 

(year 

2000)

TNC 

Threat 

Score

Gov't 

Owned 

(%)

Private 

Owned 

(%)

NGO 

Owned 

(%)

Lighthouse

Elevation, 

from water 

surface (m)

Miles 

to 

Closest 

NWR

Key 

Ecological 

Systems 

(#)

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern (AOU 

code)

LM12-650 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 1 0

LM12-642 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 1 0

LM12-649 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 2 0

LM12-640 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 2 1

LM12-641 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 1 0

LM12-643 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 3 0

LM12-646 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 3 0

LM12-634 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 1 0

LM12-636 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 2 0

LM12-638 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 1 0

LM12-633 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 1 0

LM12-631 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 1 0

LM12-637 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 1 0

LM12-632 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 2 0

LM12-617 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 19 2

LM12-629 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 2 1

LM12-625 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 3 0

LM12-619 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 0 0

LM12-622 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 0 2

LM12-627 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 1 0

LM12-620 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 28 2

LM12-612 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 6 2

LM12-628 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 4 2

LH10-599 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 8 2

LM12-621 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 28 0

LM12-623 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 2 2

LM12-613 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 6 0

LH10-600 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 9 2

LH10-603 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 1 2

LH8-616 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 23 0

LM12-614 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 19 2

LM12-618 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 9 0

LM12-604 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 27 0

LM12-608 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 4 0

LM12-597 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 28 2

LM11-611 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 37 0

LM11-615 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 33 0

LM12-593 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 23 0

LM12-586 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 20 0

LM12-595 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 21 2

LM11-607 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 37 0

LH10-589 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 9 2

LM12-584 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 0 0

LM11-592 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 32 0
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

215

TNC 

Complex 

Number

TNC Complex 

Name Acres

Houses 

per Acre 

(year 

2000)

TNC 

Threat 

Score

Gov't 

Owned 

(%)

Private 

Owned 

(%)

NGO 

Owned 

(%)

Lighthouse

Elevation, 

from water 

surface (m)

Miles 

to 

Closest 

NWR

Key 

Ecological 

Systems 

(#)

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern (AOU 

code)

LH8-580 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 31 0

LM11-601 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 33 0

LM10-587 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 5 1

LM10-579 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 9 1

LM12-574 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 6 0

LH8-575 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 31 0

LM10-577 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 6 1

LM12-568 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 1 0

LM12-571 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 3 0

LM12-565 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 13 0

LM11-569 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 33 0

LM11-566 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 34 0

LM12-562 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 3 0

LM13-561 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 12 0

LH8-559 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 31 0

LH8-556 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 31 0

LM11-557 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 27 0

LM12-549 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 6 0

LM11-555 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 32 0

LM11-554 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 27 0

LM12-547 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 13 0

LM9-553 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 9 0

LM9-551 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 9 0

LM11-546 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 37 0

LM11-548 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 24 0

LM9-552 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 8 0

LH8-545 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 31 0

LH8-544 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 31 0

LM9-550 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 24 0

LM9-543 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 24 0

LM12-540 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 14 0

LM12-538 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 1 0

LM9-542 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 21 0

LM12-530 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 14 0

LM10-539 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 9 0

LM11-536 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 34 0

LM10-533 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 7 0

LM10-535 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 7 0

LM10-534 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 6 0

LM10-527 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 7 0

LM10-532 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 7 0

LM10-529 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 7 0

LM12-524 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 1 0

LM12-520 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 3 0
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

216

TNC 

Complex 

Number

TNC Complex 

Name Acres

Houses 

per Acre 

(year 

2000)

TNC 

Threat 

Score

Gov't 

Owned 

(%)

Private 

Owned 

(%)

NGO 

Owned 

(%)

Lighthouse

Elevation, 

from water 

surface (m)

Miles 

to 

Closest 

NWR

Key 

Ecological 

Systems 

(#)

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern (AOU 

code)

LM13-518 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 13 1

LM12-517 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 0 0

LM11-519 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 32 0

LM12-516 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 2 0

LM12-515 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 2 0

LH8-514 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 31 0

LH8-513 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 29 0

LM1-508 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 7 0

LM1-510 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 8 0

LM9-512 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 22 0

LM1-505 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 7 0

LM1-503 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 8 0

LM1-502 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 6 0

LM1-499 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 7 0

LM1-496 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 7 0

LM9-500 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 20 0

LM1-494 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 8 0

LM9-498 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 20 0

LM1-493 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 9 0

LM9-495 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 20 0

LH8-487 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 31 0

LM11-489 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 18 1

LH8-484 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 30 0

LM9-488 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 16 0

LM11-482 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 28 1

LM1-471 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 10 0

LH8-477 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 30 0

LM1-470 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 14 0

LM11-480 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 38 1

LH8-478 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 31 0

LM1-468 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 9 0

LM1-463 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 10 0

LM1-462 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 10 0

LM1-467 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 3 0

LM1-461 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 11 0

LM11-475 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 26 1

LM11-476 0 0.1 3 0 100 0 No 0 22 1

LM11-472 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 23 1

LM1-457 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 11 0

LM1-449 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 12 0

LM1-454 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 12 0

LM1-442 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 3 0

LM1-443 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 13 0

LM1-444 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 12 0
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

217

TNC 

Complex 

Number

TNC Complex 

Name Acres

Houses 

per Acre 

(year 

2000)

TNC 

Threat 

Score

Gov't 

Owned 

(%)

Private 

Owned 

(%)

NGO 

Owned 

(%)

Lighthouse

Elevation, 

from water 

surface (m)

Miles 

to 

Closest 

NWR

Key 

Ecological 

Systems 

(#)

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern (AOU 

code)

LM11-453 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 17 1

LM9-459 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 19 0

LM11-448 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 2 1

LM11-447 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 4 1

LM11-445 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 4 1

LM1-438 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 15 0

LM1-436 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 24 0

LM1-435 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 15 0

LM11-441 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 13 1

LM11-439 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 19 1

LH8-437 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 31 0

LM11-434 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 20 1

LM1-429 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 31 0

LH8-431 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 31 0

LM1-425 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 28 0

LM1-426 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 30 0

LM2-423 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 33 0

LM2-417 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 31 0

LM11-422 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 16 2

LM2-420 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 37 0

LM2-415 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 18 0

LM2-412 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 19 0

LM11-419 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 32 2

LM10-413 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 7 0

LM11-409 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 31 2

LH7-401 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 29 0

LM1-395 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 26 0

LM11-393 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 16 2

LM11-398 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 34 2

LH7-396 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 28 0

LM11-397 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 17 2

LM9-392 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 23 0

LM11-388 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 37 2

LH7-385 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 29 0

LM2-384 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 19 2

LM9-387 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 23 0

LM9-390 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 23 0

LM9-386 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 22 0

LH7-378 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 21 2

LM2-377 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 19 2

LM2-375 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 16 2

LM2-371 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 18 2

LM10-380 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 9 1

LH7-374 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 21 2
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

218

TNC 

Complex 

Number

TNC Complex 

Name Acres

Houses 

per Acre 

(year 

2000)

TNC 

Threat 

Score

Gov't 

Owned 

(%)

Private 

Owned 

(%)

NGO 

Owned 

(%)

Lighthouse

Elevation, 

from water 

surface (m)

Miles 

to 

Closest 

NWR

Key 

Ecological 

Systems 

(#)

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern (AOU 

code)

LM2-369 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 18 2

LM2-361 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 35 2

LH7-368 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 33 1

LH7-359 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 21 1

LH7-355 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 28 0

LH7-356 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 28 1

LM10-362 0 0.0 3 0 100 0 No 0 4 1

LH7-354 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 27 1

LH7-350 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 26 0

LM11-352 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 20 2

LH7-349 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 26 0

LM13-347 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 0 0

LM10-343 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 8 0

LH7-336 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 3 0

LH7-337 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 14 0

LM2-335 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 35 2

LM2-333 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 34 2

LM2-332 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 33 2

LM2-331 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 32 2

LM2-330 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 29 2

LM2-329 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 31 2

LM2-323 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 16 2

LH6-325 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 17 0

LM2-317 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 14 2

LH6-316 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 16 0

LM2-315 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 13 2

LM2-311 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 13 2

LH6-313 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 15 0

LM2-305 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 13 2

LH6-306 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 16 0

LH6-309 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 14 0

LM2-302 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 12 2

LH6-303 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 13 0

LM11-307 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 33 1

LM11-304 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 34 1

LH6-301 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 12 0

LH6-300 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 12 0

LH6-298 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 11 0

LH6-297 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 3 0

LM11-299 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 17 1

LH6-296 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 2 0

LH6-295 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 2 0

LM3-292 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 38 0

LM3-291 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 38 1
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

219

TNC 

Complex 

Number

TNC Complex 

Name Acres

Houses 

per Acre 

(year 

2000)

TNC 

Threat 

Score

Gov't 

Owned 

(%)

Private 

Owned 

(%)

NGO 

Owned 

(%)

Lighthouse

Elevation, 

from water 

surface (m)

Miles 

to 

Closest 

NWR

Key 

Ecological 

Systems 

(#)

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern (AOU 

code)

LM11-293 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 21 1

LH6-288 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 7 0

LM11-289 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 37 0

LM11-286 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 27 0

LM10-284 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 7 1

LM11-280 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 26 0

LM11-276 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 28 0

LM11-271 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 36 0

LM11-272 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 28 0

LM11-270 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 32 0

LM11-268 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 36 0

LM11-266 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 22 0

LM11-267 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 31 0

LM11-265 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 29 0

LH4-238 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 9 0

LH6-226 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 3 0

LH4-230 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 12 0

LH4-227 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 1 0

LH4-225 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 19 0

LH5-215 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 2 0

LH4-222 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 19 0

LH4-220 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 25 0

LH5-210 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 1 0

LH4-221 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 19 0

LH4-216 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 32 0

LH4-219 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 23 0

LH4-208 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 0 0

LH4-205 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 21 0

LH4-204 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 17 0

LM8-207 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 38 0

LH5-197 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 3 0

LH5-193 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 3 2

LH5-195 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 1 0

LH5-192 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 23 0

LH5-199 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 2 1

LH5-194 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 9 1

LH4-196 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 21 0

LH4-189 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 20 0

LH4-188 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 34 0

LH4-186 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 34 0

LH4-184 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 34 0

LH5-179 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 11 0

LH4-180 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 30 0

LH4-178 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 36 0
Appendix C: Land Protection Plan

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

220

TNC 

Complex 

Number

TNC Complex 

Name Acres

Houses 

per Acre 

(year 

2000)

TNC 

Threat 

Score

Gov't 

Owned 

(%)

Private 

Owned 

(%)

NGO 

Owned 

(%)

Lighthouse

Elevation, 

from water 

surface (m)

Miles 

to 

Closest 

NWR

Key 

Ecological 

Systems 

(#)

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern (AOU 

code)

LH4-176 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 35 0

LH4-169 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 35 0

LH5-162 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 9 2

LH4-167 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 36 0

LH4-166 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 36 0

LH5-160 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 9 2

LH4-138 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 36 0

LM11-281 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 33 0

LH5-130 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 24 2

LH5-126 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 9 2

LH5-125 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 11 2

LH5-122 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 24 2

LH4-124 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 36 0

LH4-121 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 36 0

LH4-120 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 37 0

LH4-119 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 37 0

LH4-116 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 38 0

LH4-117 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 37 0

LH4-114 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 39 0

LH4-115 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 38 0

LH4-110 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 39 0

LH4-111 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 39 0

LH4-108 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 40 0

LH4-106 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 44 0

LH4-105 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 44 0

LH4-103 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 45 0

LH4-98 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 3 0

LH4-97 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 14 0

LH4-94 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 13 0

LH4-93 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 11 0

LM7-80 0 0.0 0 0 100 0 No 0 36 0
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

221

Appendix D: Species Lists

In this appendix:

Great Lakes Fish Species

Gravel Island NWR

Gravel Island and Green Bay NWRs

Harbor Island NWR

Huron NWR

Michigan Islands NWR

(National Wildlife Refuge = NWR, Refuge)

Great Lakes Fish Species

Common Name Scientific Name Present/Absent Regional/State Status

Lake 

Michigan

Lake Huron Lake 

Superior

R3-Conservation Priority in Region 3

E- Federal Endangered

T-Federal Threatened

SE-State Endangered

ST-State Threatened

SSC-State Special Concern

Acipenseridae

Lake sturgeon Acipenser 

fulvescens x x x

R3 (rare/declining, recreational/ 

economic value, tribal trust), SSC

(WI), ST (MI)

Amiidae

Bowfin Amia calva x x

Catostomidae

White sucker Catostomus 

commersoni x x x

Longnose sucker Catostomus 

catostomus x x x

Centrarchidae

Rockbass Ambloplites 

rupestris x x x

Smallmouth bass Micropterus 

dolomieui x x x

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus x x x

Clupeidae

Gizzard shad # Dorosoma 

cepedianum x x x

Alewife # Alosa 

pseudoharengus x x

Cyprinidae

Carp # Cyprinus Carpio x x x

Esocidae

Northern pike Esox Lucieus x x x

Muskellunge Esox masquinongy x x x

Gadidae

Burbot Lota lota x x x

Gobiidae

Round goby # Neogobius 

melanostomus x x x R3 (nuisance)

Moronidae

White bass Morone chrysops x x

Osmeridae

Rainbow smelt # Osmerus mordax x x x

Percichthyidae

White perch # Morone americana x x x
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

222

Common Name Scientific Name Present/Absent Regional/State Status

Percidae

Yellow perch Perca flavescens x x x R3 (rare/declining,

recreational/economic value)

Walleye Stizostedion vitreum x x x R3 (recreational/economic value,

tribal trust

Eurasian ruffe # Gymnocephalus 

cernuus x x R3 (nuisance)

Petromyzontidae

Sea lamprey # Petromyzon 

marinus x x x R3 (nuisance)

Salmonidae

Brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis x x x

R3 (rare/declining,

recreational/economic value, tribal 

trust)

Brown trout # Salmo trutta x x x

Lake trout Salvelinus 

namaycush x x x

R3 (rare/declining,

recreational/economic value, tribal 

trust)

Rainbow trout # Oncorhynchus 

mykiss x x x

Lake whitefish Coregonus 

clupeaformis x x x R3 (Recreational/economic value, tribal trust)

Round whitefish Prosopium 

cylindraceum x x x

Lake herring Coregonus artedii x x x ST (MI)

Shortjaw cisco Cor egonus 

zenithicus x x x R3 (rare/declining),SSC (WI), ST(MI)

Kiyi Coregonus kiyi x x R3 (rare/declining),SSC(WI,MI)

Chinook salmon # Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha x x x R3 (recreational/economic value)

Coho salmon # Oncorhynchus 

kisutch x x x R3 (recreational/economic value)

Pink salmon # Oncorhynchus 

gorbuscha x

Bloater Coregonus hoyi x x x

Sciaenidae

Freshwater drum Aplodinotus 

grunniens x x x

# Denotes introduced species

Note: Not every species found in the lakes is included
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

223

Gravel Island NWR

Bird Species

Species Scientific Name Habitat Spring Summer Fall

Loons

Common Loon (Gavia immer) OW (u) o (u)

Grebes

Pied-billed Grebe (Podilymbus podiceps) OW (u) o (u)

Pelicans

American White Pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) OW/RS (u) o (u)

Cormorants

Double-crested Cormorant * (Phalacrocorax auritus) OW/RS/MF a a a

Herons and Bitterns

Great Blue Heron* (Ardea herodias) RS/MF c c c

Black-crowned Night-Heron* (Nycticorax nycticorax) RS/MF u u u

Great Egret* (Ardea alba) RS/MF u u u

Swans, Geese, and Ducks

Canada Goose* (Branta canadensis) OW/RS a c a

Tundra Swan (Cygnus columbianus) OW u u

Mute Swan* (Cygnus olor) OW/RS c c c

Gadwall (Anas strepera) OW (u) (u)

American Wigeon (Anas americana) OW (u) (u)

American Black Duck* (Anas rubripes) OW/RS u u u

Mallard Duck* (Anas platyrhynchos) OW/RS c c c

Blue-winged Teal (Anas discors) OW (u) (u)

Northern Pintail (Anas acuta) OW u u

Green-winged Teal (Anas crecca) OW (u) (u)

Redhead (Aythya americana) OW (u) (u)

Greater Scaup (Aythya marila) OW (u) (u)

Lesser Scaup (Aythya affinis) OW (u) (u)

Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola) OW (u) (u) (u)

Common Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula) OW c c c

Long-tailed Duck (Clangula hyemalis) OW ( c ) ( c )

Hooded Merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus) OW (u) (u)

Common Merganser (Mergus merganser) OW (u) (u) o

Red-breasted Merganser* (Mergus serrator) OW/RS c c c

Hawks and Eagles

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) OW/RS/MF u u u

Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus) FE u u u

Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus) MF r r r

Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) FE/GF/MF c c c

Broad-winged Hawk (Buteo platypterus) (a) u (a)

Falcons

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) r r r

Merlin (Falco columbarius) MF r

Rails and Coots

American Coot (Fulica americana) OW (u) (u)

Shorebirds

Black-bellied Plover (Pluvialis squatarola) RS (u) (r)

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) RS/SB (u) (r)

Semipalmated Plover (Charadrius semipalmatus) SB (u) (r)

Killdeer* (Charadrius vociferus) RS c c c

Greater Yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca) RS (u) (u) (u)

Lesser Yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes) RS (u) (u) (u)

Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus) SB ( r)

Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda) GM ( r)

Least Sandpiper (Calidris minutilla) SB (u) (r)

Pectoral Sandpiper (Calidris acuminata) RS (u) (r)

Dunlin (Calidris alpina) SB (u) (u) (u)

Red Knot (Calidris canutus) RS/SB ( r)

Sanderling (Calidris alba) SB (u) (u) (u)

Ruddy Turnstone (Arenaria interpres) RS (u)

Gulls and Terns
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

224

Species Scientific Name Habitat Spring Summer Fall

Bonaparte's Gull (Larus philadelphia) SB/RS ( c) (u)

Ring-billed Gull* (Larus delawarensis) SB/RS c c c

Herring Gull* (Larus argentatus) RS/SB a a c

Great Black-backed Gull* (Larus marinus) RS o o

Common Tern (Sterna hirundo) OW/RS (u) u (u)

Caspian Tern* (Sterna caspia) OW/RS c c (u)

Kingfishers

Belted Kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon) RS/FE c c c

Jays, Magpies, and Crows

American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) MF a a a

Common Raven (Corvus corax) MF c c c

Larks

Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris) GM u

Swallows

Cliff Swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) SB/RS c c c

Wagtails and Pipits

Water Pipit (Anthus spinoletta) RS ( r )

Sparrows

Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) GM c c u

Blackbirds

Red-winged Blackbird* (Agelaius phoeniceus) GM/W c c c

Common Grackle (Quiscalus quiscula) FE c c c

* Denotes species nesting on the refuge

Abundance Code Decode Season Dates

a abundant Spring April-mid-June

c common Summer mid-June- August

o occasional Fall September-November

r rare Winter December-March

u uncommon

( ) during migration

Habitat Code Decode

MF Mixed Coniferous/Hardwood Forest

FE Forest Edge

W Wetlands/Ephmeral Ponds

GM Grassy Meadow

SB Sandy Beach/Dunes

RS Rocky Shoreline

OW Open Water/Off-shore Islands
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

225

Gravel Island and Green Bay NWRs

Wildlife Species of Management Concern to Gravel Island and Green 

Bay NWRs

Species Scientific Name Refuge Status

Regional/State Status

R3-Conservation Priority in 

Region 3

E- Federal Endangered

T-Federal Threatened

SE-State Endangered

ST-State Threatened

SSC-State Special Concern

Mammals

White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus Recreation/Economic/Abundant

Birds

Common Loon Gavia immer Uncommon R3

American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos Uncommon SSC

Double-crested 

Cormorant Phalacrocorax auratus Abundant R3 (nuisance)

Black-crowned NightHeron Nycticorax nycticorax Uncommon R3, SSC

Great Egret Ardea alba Uncommon ST

Canada Goose Branta canadensis Recreational/Economic/Common R3

Wood Duck Aix sponsa Recreational/Economic/Uncommon R3

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Recreational/Economic/Common R3

American Black Duck Anas rubripes Recreational/Economic/Uncommon R3, SSC

Blue-winged Teal Anas discors Recreational/Economic/Uncommon R3

Northern Pintail Anas acuta Recreational/Economic/Uncommon R3, SSC

Redhead Aythya americana Recreational/Economic/Uncommon SSC

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis Recreational/Economic/Uncommon R3

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula Recreational/Economic/Common SSC

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Common R3, SSC

Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus Rare R3, ST

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Rare R3, SE

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Rare E, R3, SE

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca Uncommon R3

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus Rare R3, SSC

Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Rare R3, SSC

American Woodcock Scolopax minor Recreational/Economic/Common R3

Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus Uncommon R3

Bonaparte's Gull Larus philadelphia Common SSC

Great Black-backed Gull Larus marinus Rare SSC

Common Tern Sterna hirundo Rare R3, SE

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia Common SE

Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus Uncommon R3

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Uncommon SSC

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Common R3

Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis Uncommon R3

Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus Uncommon SSC

Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera Uncommon R3

Cape May Warbler Dendroica tigrina Uncommon SSC

Black-throated Blue 

Warbler Dendroica caerulescens Uncommon R3, SSC

Reptiles

Northern ringneck snake Diadophis puntatus edwarsi Uncommon SSC

Plants

Dwarf lake iris Iris lacustris Uncommon T, R3, ST

Dune goldenrod Solidago simplex var. 

gillmanii Uncommon ST

Climbing fumitory Adlumia fungosa Uncommon SSC

One-flowered cancer root Orobanche uniflora Uncommon SSC

White camas Zigadenus elegans var. 

glaucus Uncommon SSC
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

226

Canada yew Taxus canadensis Uncommon SSC

Tufted hairgrass Deschampsia cespitosa Uncommon SSC

Variegated horsetail Equisetum variegatum Uncommon SSC

American sea rocket Cakile lacustris Uncommon SSC
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

227

Vegetation by Island

Gravel Island NWR

Gravel Island Vegetation

Scientific Name Genus Species Common Name Family

Malva neglecta Malva neglecta common mallow Malvaceae

Polygonum 

lapathifolium Polygonum lapathifolium nodding smartweed, curly-top knotweed, pale smartweed Polygonaceae

Potentilla norvegica Potentilla norvegica rough cinquefoil Rosaceae

Solanum dulcamara Solanum dulcamara bittersweet nightshade Solanaceae

Argentina anserina Argentina anserina silverweed Rosaceae

Erysimum 

cheiranthoides Erysimum cheiranthoides wormseed-mustard Brassicaceae

Sedum acre Sedum acre golden carpet, gold moss stonecrop Crassulaceae

Amaranthus sp. Amaranthus sp. amaranth Amaranthaceae

Cirsium vulgare Cirsium vulgare bull thistle Asteraceae

Populus deltoides Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood Salicaceae

Solidago canadensis Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod Asteraceae

Achillea millefolium Achillea millefolium yarrow Asteraceae

Euthamia graminifolia Euthamia graminifolia flat-topped goldenrod Asteraceae

Cakile lacustris Cakile lacustris sea-rocket Brassicaceae

Eupatorium perfoliatum Eupatorium perfoliatum boneset Asteraceae

Lycopus americanus Lycopus americanus common water-horehound Lamiaceae

Portulaca oleracea Portulaca oleracea purslane Portulacaceae

Polygonum persicaria Polygonum persicaria lady's thumb Polygonaceae

Salix exigua Salix exigua sandbar willow Salicaceae

Senecio vulgaris Senecio vulgaris common groundsel Asteraceae

Spider Island Vegetation

Scientific Name Genus Species Common Name Family

Malva neglecta Malva neglecta common mallow Malvaceae

Nepeta cataria Nepeta cataria catnip Lamiaceae

Polygonum 

lapathifolium Polygonum lapathifolium nodding smartweed, curly-top knotweed, pale smartweed Polygonaceae

Potentilla norvegica Potentilla norvegica rough cinquefoil Rosaceae

Solanum dulcamara Solanum dulcamara bittersweet nightshade Solanaceae

Urtica dioica Urtica dioica stinging nettle Urticaceae

Argentina anserina Argentina anserina silverweed Rosaceae

Erysimum 

cheiranthoides Erysimum cheiranthoides wormseed-mustard Brassicaceae

Sedum acre Sedum acre golden carpet, gold moss stonecrop Crassulaceae

Veronica anallisaquatica Veronica anallis-aquatica water speedwell Scrophulariaceae

Silene vulgaris Silene vulgaris bladder campion Caryophyllaceae

Amaranthus sp. Amaranthus sp. amaranth Amaranthaceae

Aster sp. Aster sp. aster Asteraceae

Conyza canadensis Conyza canadensis horseweed Asteraceae

Polygonum sp. Polygonum sp. polygonum Polygonaceae

Sisymbrium altissimum Sisymbrium altissimum tumble mustard Brassicaceae
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

228

Green Bay NWR

Hog Island Vegetation

Scientific Name Genus Species Common Name Family

Betula papyrifera Betula papyrifera white birch, paper birch Betulaceae

Cirsium vulgare Cirsium vulgare bull thistle Asteraceae

Cornus stolonifera Cornus stolonifera red-osier dogwood Cornaceae

Malva neglecta Malva neglecta common mallow Malvaceae

Nepeta cataria Nepeta cataria catnip Lamiaceae

Polygonum 

lapathifolium Polygonum lapathifolium

nodding smartweed, curly-top knotweed, 

pale smartweed Polygonaceae

Potentilla norvegica Potentilla norvegica rough cinquefoil Rosaceae

Prunus virginiana Prunus virginiana chokecherry Rosaceae

Sambucus racemosa Sambucus racemosa red-berried elder Caprifoliaceae

Solanum dulcamara Solanum dulcamara bittersweet nightshade Solanaceae

Urtica dioica Urtica dioica stinging nettle Urticaceae

Epilobium ciliatum Epilobium ciliatum willow-herb Onagraceae

Impatiens capensis Impatiens capensis touch-me-not, jewelweed Balsaminaceae

Populus deltoides Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood Salicaceae

Rubus sp. Rubus sp. red raspberry Rosaceae

Argentina anserina Argentina anserina silverweed Rosaceae

Aster pilosus Aster pilosus Pringle's frost aster Asteraceae

Geranium robertianum Geranium robertianum herb-robert Geraniaceae

Melilotus alba Melilotus alba white sweet-clover Leguminosae

Populus tremuloides Populus tremuloides quaking aspen Salicaceae

Silene latifolia Silene latifolia white campion, evening lychnis Caryophyllaceae

Solidago canadensis Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod Asteraceae

Abies balsamea Abies balsamea balsam fir Pinaceae

Achillea millefolium Achillea millefolium yarrow Asteraceae

Artemisia sp. Artemisia sp. wormwood Asteraceae

Aster puniceus Aster puniceus purple-stemmed aster Asteraceae

Berteroa incana Berteroa incana hoary-alyssum Brassicaceae

Campanula rotundifolia Campanula rotundifolia harebell Campanulaceae

Celastrus scandens Celastrus scandens American bittersweet Celastraceae

Cirsium arvense Cirsium arvense Canada thistle Asteraceae

Elymus canadensis Elymus canadensis Canada wildrye Poaceae

Erysimum 

cheiranthoides Erysimum cheiranthoides wormseed-mustard Brassicaceae

Erigeron sp. Erigeron sp. fleabane Asteraceae

Euthamia graminifolia Euthamia graminifolia flat-topped goldenrod Asteraceae

Leonurus cardiaca Leonurus cardiaca motherwort Lamiaceae

Leucanthemum vulgare Leucanthemum vulgare ox-eye daisy Asteraceae

Lythrum salicaria Lythrum salicaria purple loosestrife Lythrumaceae

Matricaria discoidea Matricaria discoidea pineapple-weed Asteraceae

Polygonum cilinode Polygonum cilinode fringed bindweed Polygonaceae

Ribes americanum Ribes americanum American black currant Grossulariaceae

Salix bebbiana Salix bebbiana beaked willow Salicaceae

Salix lucida Salix lucida shining willow Salicaceae

Sedum acre Sedum acre golden carpet, gold moss stonecrop Crassulaceae

Taxus canadensis Taxus canadensis Canada yew Taxaceae

Veronica anallisaquatica Veronica anallis-aquatica water speedwell Scrophulariaceae
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

229

Pilot Island Vegetation

Scientific Name Genus Species Common Name Family

Betula papyrifera Betula papyrifera white birch, paper birch Betulaceae

Cirsium vulgare Cirsium vulgare bull thistle Asteraceae

Cornus stolonifera Cornus stolonifera red-osier dogwood Cornaceae

Hemerocallis fulva Hemerocallis fulva day-lily Liliaceae

Heracleum maximum Heracleum maximum cow parsnip Apiaceae

Malva neglecta Malva neglecta common mallow Malvaceae

Nepeta cataria Nepeta cataria catnip Lamiaceae

Physocarpus 

opulifolius Physocarpus opulifolius Ninebark Rosaceae

Polygonum 

lapathifolium Polygonum lapathifolium nodding smartweed, curly-top knotweed, pale smartweed Polygonaceae

Potentilla norvegica Potentilla norvegica rough cinquefoil Rosaceae

Prunus virginiana Prunus virginiana chokecherry Rosaceae

Saponaria officinalis Saponaria officinalis soapwort, bouncing-bet Caryophyllaceae

Sambucus racemosa Sambucus racemosa red-berried elder Caprifoliaceae

Solanum dulcamara Solanum dulcamara bittersweet nightshade Solanaceae

Syringa vulgaria Syringa vulgaria lilac Oleaceae

Urtica dioica Urtica dioica stinging nettle Urticaceae

Verbascum thapsus Verbascum thapsus common mullein Scrophulariaceae

Convolvulus sp. (vine) Convolvulus sp. (vine) bindweed Convolvulaceae

Cynoglossum 

officinale Cynoglossum officinale hound's tongue Boraginaceae

Epilobium ciliatum Epilobium ciliatum willow-herb Onagraceae

Fraxinus 

pennsylvanica Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Oleaceae

Geum sp. Geum sp. Geum Rosaceae

Impatiens capensis Impatiens capensis touch-me-not, jewelweed Balsaminaceae

Lysimachia ciliata Lysimachia ciliata fringed loosestrife Primulaceae

Oenothera biennis Oenothera biennis common evening-primrose Onagraceae

Populus deltoides Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood Salicaceae

Rubus sp. Rubus sp. red raspberry Rosaceae

Silene vulgaris Silene vulgaris bladder campion Caryophyllaceae

Smilacina stellata Smilacina stellata starry false Solomon's-seal Liliaceae

Thuja occidentalis Thuja occidentalis northern white cedar Cupressaceae
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

230

Plum Island Vegetation

Scientific Name Genus Species Common Name Family

Abies balsamea Abies balsamea balsam fir Pinaceae

Acer negundo Acer negundo box-elder Aceraceae

Acer saccharum Acer saccharum sugar maple Aceraceae

Acer spicatum Acer spicatum mountain maple Aceraceae

Achillea millefolium Achillea millefolium yarrow Asteraceae

Acinos arvensis Acinos arvensis basil-thyme Lamiaceae

Actaea rubra Actaea rubra red baneberry Ranunculaceae

Actea pachypoda Actea pachypoda white baneberry Ranunculaceae

Adlumia fungosa Adlumia fungosa Allegheny vine Fumariaceae

Agalinis purpurea Agalinis purpurea purple false foxglove Scrophulariaceae

Agrimonia gryposepala Agrimonia gryposepala common agrimony Rosaceae

Agrostis hyemalis Agrostis hyemalis tickle grass Poaceae

Agrostis stolonifera Agrostis stolonifera creeping bent grass Poaceae

Allium tricoccum Allium tricoccum wild leek Liliaceae

Alnus incana Alnus incana speckled alder Betulaceae

Amaranthus powellii Amarathus powellii tall amaranth Amaranthaceae

Amelanchier sanguinea Amelanchier sanguinea round-leaved juneberry Rosaceae

Anaphalis margaritacea Anaphalis margaritacea pearly everlasting Compositae

Anemone acutiloba Anemone acutiloba sharp-lobed hepatica Ranunculaceae

Anemone americana Anemone americana round-lobed hepatica Ranunculaceae

Anemone canadensis Anemone canadensis Canada anemone Ranunculaceae

Anemone virginiana Anemone virginiana tall thimbleweed Ranunculaceae

Antennaria howellii Antennaria howellii Howell's pussy-toes Compositae

Apocynum 

androsaemifolium Apocynum androsaemifolium spreading dogbane Apocynaceae

Aquilegia canadensis Aquilegia canadensis columbine Ranunculaceae

Arabis divaricarpa Arabis divaricarpa spreading-pod rock-cress Cruciferae

Arabis hirsuta Arabis hirsuta hairy rock-cress Cruciferae

Arabis lyrata Arabis lyrata lyre-leaved rock-cress Cruciferae

Aralia nudicaulis Aralia nudicaulis wild sarsaparilla Araliaceae

Aralia racemosa Aralia racemosa spikenard Araliaceae

Arctium minus Arctium minus common burdock Asteraceae

Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Arctostaphylos uva-ursi bearberry Ericaceae

Arenaria serpyllifolia Arenaria serpyllifolia thyme-leaved sandwort Caryophyllaceae

Argentina anserina Argentina anserina silverweed Rosaceae

Arisaema triphyllum Arisaema triphyllum jack-in-the-pulpit Araceae

Artemisia biennis Artemisia biennis biennial wormwood Compositae

Asclepias syriaca Asclepias syriaca common milkweed Asclepiadaceae

Asparagus officinalis Asparagus officinalis asparagus Liliaceae

Aster ciliolatus Aster ciliolatus Lindley's aster Compositae

Aster macrophyllus Aster macrophyllus big-leaved aster Compositae

Aster pilosus Aster pilosus Pringle's frost aster Asteraceae

Athyrium filix-femina Anthyrium filix-femina lady fern Dryopteraceae

Barbarea vulgaris Barbarea vulgaris garden yellow-rocket Cruciferae

Berberis thunbergii Berberis thunbergii Japanese barberry Berberidaceae

Berteroa incana Berteroa incana hoary-alyssum Brassicaceae

Betula papyrifera Betula papyrifera white birch, paper birch Betulaceae

Bidens cernua Bidens cernua nodding beggar-ticks Compositae

Botrychium virginianum Botrychium virginianum rattlesnake fern Ophioglossaceae

Cakile lacustris Cakile lacustris sea rocket Brassicaceae

Calamagrostis 

canadensis Calamagrostis canadensis bluejoint grass Poaceae

Caltha palustris Caltha palustris marsh marigold Ranunculaceae

Calystegia sepium Calystegia sepium hedge bindweed Convolvulaceae

Campanula aparinoides Campanula aparinoides marsh bellflower Campanulaceae

Campanula rotundifolia Campanula rotundifolia harebell Campanulaceae

Capsella bursa-pastoris Capsella bursa-pastoris shepherd's-purse Cruciferae

Cardamine 

concatenata Cardamine concatenata broad-leaved toothwort Cruciferae

Cardamine diphylla Cardamine diphylla board-leaved toothwort

Carex aquatilis Carex aquatilis water sedge Cyperaceae

Carex arctata Carex arctata drooping woodland sedge Cyperaceae

Carex deweyana Carex deweyana Dewey's sedge Cyperaceae
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

231

Scientific Name Genus Species Common Name Family

Carex eburnea Carex eburnea bristle-leaf sedge Cyperaceae

Carex flava Carex flava yellow sedge Cyperaceae

Carex hystericina Carex hystericina bottlebrush sedge Cyperaceae

Carex laxiflora Carex laxiflora broad loose-flowered sedge Cyperaceae

Carex peckii Carex peckii Peck's sedge Cyperaceae

Carex pedunculata Carex pedunculata long-stalked sedge Cyperaceae

Carex pensylvanica Carex pensylvanica Penn sedge Cyperaceae

Carex radiata Carex radiata eastern star sedge Cyperaceae

Carex rosea Carex rosea rosy sedge Cyperaceae

Carex sartwellii Carex sartwellii Sartwell's sedge Cyperaceae

Carex viridula Carex viridula little green sedge Cyperaceae

Castilleja coccinea Castilleja coccinea indian paintbrush Scrophulariaceae

Caulophyllum 

thalictroides Caulophyllum thalictroides blue cohosh Berberidaceae

Celastrus scandens Celastrus scandens American bittersweet Celastraceae

Centaurea biebersteinii Centaurea biebersteinii spotted knapweed Compositae

Cerastium fontanum Cerastium fontanum mouse-ear chickweed Caryophyllaceae

Cerastium nutans Cerastium nutans nodding chickweed Caryophyllaceae

Chenopodium 

capitatum Chenopodium capitatum strawberry-blite Chenoppdiaceae

Cichorium intybus Cichorium intybus chickory Compositae

Cicuta bulbifera Cicuta bulbifera bulblet water-hemlock Umbelliferae

Circa alpina Circea alpina dwarf enchanters nightshade Onagraceae

Circaea lutetiana Circaea lutetiana common enchanter's-nightshade Onagraceae

Cirsium arvense Cirsium arvense Canada thistle Asteraceae

Cirsium palustre Cirsium palustre European swamp thistle Compositae

Cirsium vulgare Cirsium vulgare bull thistle Asteraceae

Claytonia caroliniana Claytonia caroliniana Carolina spring-beauty Portulacaceae

Clinopodium vulgare Clinopodium vulgare wild-basil Lamiaceae

Clintonia borealis Clintonia borealis bluebead Liliaceae

Comandra umbellata Comandra umbellata bastard-toadflax Santalaceae

Comarum palustre Comarum palustre marsh cinquefoil Rosaceae

Convallaria majalis Convallaria majalis European lily-of-the-valley Liliaceae

Convolvulus sp. Convolvulus bindweed Convolvulaceae

Conyza canadensis Conyza canadensis horseweed Asteraceae

Cornus rugosa Cornus rugosa round-leaved dogwood Cornaceae

Cornus stolonifera Cornus stolonifera red-osier dogwood Cornaceae

Corydalis aurea Corydalis aurea golden corydalis Fumariaceae

Crepis tectorum Crepis tectorum hawk's-beard Compositae

Cynoglossum officinale Cynoglossum officinale hound's tongue Boraginaceae

Cypripedium 

pubescens Cypripedium pubescens large yellow lady's-slipper Orchidaceae

Cystopteris tenius Cystopteris tenius Mackay's brittle fern Polypodiaceae

Dactylis glomerata Dactylis glomerata orchard grass Poaceae

Daucus carota Daucus carota Queen Anne's-lace Umbelliferae

Deschampsia cespitosa Deschampsia cespitosa tufted hairgrass Poaceae

Diervilla lonicera Diervilla lonicera bush-honeysuckle Caprifoliaceae

Dryopteris intermedia Dryopteris intermedia intermidiate wood fern Polypodiaceae

Dryopteris marginalis Dryopteris marginalis marginal wood fern Polypodiaceae

Eleocharis elliptica Eleocharis elliptica elliptic spikerush Cyperaceae

Eleocharis palustris Eleocharis palustris common spikerush Cyperaceae

Elymus canadensis Elymus canadensis Canada wildrye Poaceae

Elymus trachycaulus Elymus trachycaulus slender wheatgrass Poaceae

Elytrigia repens Elytrigia repens quackgrass Poaceae

Epilobium ciliatum Epilobium ciliatum willow-herb Onagraceae

Epipactis helleborine Epipactis helleborine helleborine orchid Orchidaceae

Equisetum arvense Equisetum arvense field horsetail Equisetaceae

Equisetum variegatum Equisetum variegatum variegated scouring rush Equisetaceae

Erigeron philadelphicus Erigeron philadelphicus common fleabane Compositae

Erigeron strigosus Erigeron strigosus daisy fleabane Compositae

Erucastrum gallicum Erucastrum gallicum dog mustard Cruciferae

Erysimum 

cheiranthoides Erysimum cheiranthoides wormseed-mustard Brassicaceae

Erythronium 

americanum Erythronium americanum yellow trout-lily Liliaceae

Eupatorium perfoliatum Eupatorium perfoliatum boneset Asteraceae
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

232

Scientific Name Genus Species Common Name Family

Euthamia graminifolia Euthamia graminifolia flat-topped goldenrod Asteraceae

Festuca occidentalis Festuca occidentalis Western fescue Poaceae

Festuca pratensis Festuca pratensis rye grass Poaceae

Festuca subverticillata Festuca subverticillata nodding fescue Poaceae

Festuca trachyphylla Festuca trachyphylla sheep fescue Poaceae

Fragaria vesca Fragaria vesca woodland strawberry Rosaceae

Fragaria virginiana Fragaria virginiana wild strawberry Rosaceae

Fraxinus pennsylvanica Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Oleaceae

Galium aparine Galium aparine cleavers Rubiaceae

Galium triflorum Galium triflorum sweet-scented bedstraw Rubiaceae

Gentianopsis crinita Gentianopsis crinita fringed gentian Gentianaceae

Geranium robertianum Geranium robertianum herb-robert Geraniaceae

Geum aleppicum Geum aleppicum yellow avens Rosaceae

Geum canadense Geum canadense white avens Rosaceae

Gymnocarpium 

dryopteris Gymnocarpium dryopteris common oak fern Polypodiaceae

Halenia deflexa Halenia deflexa spurred-gentian Gentianaceae

Hemerocallis fulva Hemerocallis fulva day-lily Liliaceae

Heracleum maximum Heracleum maximum cow parsnip Apiaceae

Hesperis matronalis Hesperis matronalis dame's rocket Cruciferae

Hieracium aurantiacum Hieracium aurantiacum orange hawkweed Compositae

Hieracium kalmii Hieracium kalmii Canada hawkweed Compositae

Hieracium piloselloides Hieracium piloselloides kin-devil Compositae

Hypericum kalmianum Hypericum kalmianum Kalm's St. Johnswort Hypericaceae

Hypericum majus Hypericum majus small St. Johnswort Hypericaceae

Hypericum perforatum Hypericum perforatum common St. Johnswort Hypericaceae

Impatiens capensis Impatiens capensis touch-me-not, jewelweed Balsaminaceae

Iris lacustris Iris lacustris dwarf lake iris Iridaceae

Iris versicolor Iris versicolor northern blue flag Iridaceae

Juncus articus Juncus articus Baltic rush Juncaceae

Juniperus communis Juniperus communis common juniper Cupressaceae

Lactuca canadensis Lactuca canadensis Canada lettuce Compositae

Larix laricinia Larix laricinia tamarack Pinaceae

Lathyrus japonicus Lathyrus japonicus beach pea Leguminosae

Lathyrus palustris Lathyrus palustris marsh pea Leguminosae

Leonurus cardiaca Leonurus cardiaca motherwort Lamiaceae

Leucanthemum vulgare Leucanthemum vulgare ox-eye daisy Asteraceae

Lilium philadelphicum Lilium philadelphicum wood lily Liliaceae

Linaria vulgaris Linaria vulgaris butter-and-eggs Scrophulariaceae

Linnaea borealis Linnaea borealis twinflower Caprifoliaceae

Lobelia kalmii Lobelia kalmii brook lobelia Lobeliaceae

Lonicera canadensis Lonicera canadensis Canada honeysuckle Caprifoliaceae

Lonicera dioica Lonicera dioica red honeysuckle Caprifoliaceae

Lonicera hirsuta Lonicera hirsuta hairy honeysuckle Caprifoliaceae

Lonicera xbella Lonicera xbella Bell's honeysuckle Caprifoliaceae

Lycopus americanus Lycopus americanus common water-horehound Lamiaceae

Lysimachia quadriflora Lysimachia quadriflora narrow-leaved loosestrife Primulacae

Lysimachia thyrsiflora Lysimachia thyrsiflora tufted loosestrife Primulacae

Maianthemum 

canadense Maianthemum canadense Canada mayflower Liliaceae

Malus pumila Malus pumila apple Rosaceae

Medicago lupulina Medicago lupulina black medick Leguminosae

Melampyrum lineare Melampyrum lineare cow-wheat Scrophulariaceae

Melilotus alba Melilotus alba white sweet-clover Leguminosae

Milium effusum Milium effusum wood millet Poaceae

Myosotis scirpioides Myosotis scirpioides common forget-me-not Boraginaceae

Nepeta cataria Nepeta cataria catnip Lamiaceae

Nuphar variegatum Nuphar variegatum bullhead pondlily Nymphaeaceae

Oenothera oakesiana Oenothera oakesiana Oakes' evening-primrose Onagraceae

Orobanche uniflora Orobanche uniflora one-flowered cancer-root Orobanchaceae

Osmorhiza claytonii Osmorhiza claytonii hairy sweet cicely Apiaceae

Osmorhiza longistylis Osmorhiza longistylis long-styled sweet cicely Umbelliferae

Ostrya virginiana Ostrya virginiana hop-hornbeam Betulaceae

Panicum acuminatum Panicum acuminatum Western panic grass Poaceae

Panicum capillare Panicum capillare witch grass Poaceae
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

233

Scientific Name Genus Species Common Name Family

Phalaris arundinacea Phalaris arundinacea reed canarygrass Poaceae

Phleum pratense Phleum pratense Timothy Poaceae

Physocarpus opulifolius Physocarpus opulifolius Ninebark Rosaceae

Picea glauca Picea glauca white spruce Pinaceae

Pinus strobus Pinus strobus white pine Pinaceae

Poa pratensis Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass Poaceae

Poa annua Poa annua annual bluegrass Poaceae

Poa compressa Poa compressa Canada bluegrass Poaceae

Poa palustris Poa palustris fowl meadow grass Poaceae

Polygala paucifolia Polygala paucifolia fringed polygala Polygalaceae

Polygonatum 

pubescens Polygonatum pubescens downy Solomon's-seal Liliaceae

Polygonum amphibium Polygonum amphibium water smartweed Polygonaceae

Polygonum cilinode Polygonum cilinode fringed bindweed Polygonaceae

Polygonum erectum Polygonum erectum erect knotweed Polygonaceae

Polygonum 

lapathifolium Polygonum lapathifolium nodding smartweed, curly-top knotweed, pale smartweed Polygonaceae

Populus balsamifera Populus balsamifera balsam poplar Salicaceae

Populus deltoides Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood Salicaceae

Populus tremuloides Populus tremuloides quaking aspen Salicaceae

Portulaca oleracea Portulaca oleracea purslane Portulacaceae

Potentilla norvegica Potentilla norvegica rough cinquefoil Rosaceae

Potentilla recta Potentilla recta rough-fruited cinquefoil Rosaceae

Prunus pensylvanica Prunus pensylvanica fire cherry Rosaceae

Prunus pumila Prunus pumila sand cherry Rosaceae

Prunus virginiana Prunus virginiana chokecherry Rosaceae

Pyrola asarifolia Pyrola asarifolia pink shinleaf Pyrolaceae

Pyrola chlorantha Pyrola chlorantha greenish shinleaf Pyrolaceae

Quercus rubra Quercus rubra red oak Fagaceae

Ranunculus abortivus Ranunculus abortivus small-flowered buttercup Ranunculaceae

Ranunculus acris Ranunculus acris common buttercup Ranunculaceae

Ranunculus recurvatus Ranunculus recurvatus hooked buttercup Ranunculaceae

Rhamnus frangula Rhamnus frangula glossy buckthorn Rhamnaceae

Rorippa palustris Rorippa palustris yellow-cress Cruciferae

Rosa blanda Rosa blanda smooth rose Rosaceae

Rosa eglanteria Rosa eglanteria eglantine Rosaceae

Rubus idaeus Rubus idaeus red raspberry Rosaceae

Rudbeckia hirta Rudbeckia hirta black-eyed susan Compositae

Rumex acetosella Rumex acetosella sheep sorrel Polygonaceae

Rumex crispus Rumex crispus curly dock Polygonaceae

Rumex orbiculatus Rumex orbiculatus great water dock Polygonaceae

Salix amygdaloides Salix amygdaloides peach-leaved willow Salicaceae

Salix bebbiana Salix bebbiana beaked willow Salicaceae

Salix discolor Salix discolor pussy willow Salicaceae

Salix exigua Salix exigua sandbar willow Salicaceae

Salix lucida Salix lucida shining willow Salicaceae

Sambucus racemosa Sambucus racemosa red-berried elder Caprifoliaceae

Saponaria officinalis Saponaria officinalis soapwort, bouncing-bet Caryophyllaceae

Schoenoplectus 

pungens

Schoenoplectu

s pungens three-square bulrush Cyperaceae

Schoenoplectus 

tabernaemontanus

Schoenoplectu

s

tabernaemontan

us great bulrush Cyperaceae

Scutellaria galericulata Scutellaria galericulata common skullcap Lamiaceae

Sedum acre Sedum acre golden carpet, gold moss stonecrop Crassulaceae

Senecio vulgaris Senecio vulgaris common groundsel Asteraceae

Shepherdia canadensis Shepherdia canadensis russet buffaloberry Elaeagnaceae

Silene antirrhina Silene antirrhina sleepy catchfly Caryophyllaceae

Silene latifolia Silene latifolia white campion, evening lychnis Caryophyllaceae

Silene vulgaris Silene vulgaris bladder campion Caryophyllaceae

Sisymbrium altissimum Sisymbrium altissimum tumble mustard Brassicaceae

Sisyrinchium 

montanum Sisyrinchium montanum mountain blue-eyed-grass Iridaceae

Smilacina racemosa Smilacina racemosa common false Solomon's-seal Liliaceae

Smilacina stellata Smilacina stellata starry false Solomon's-seal Liliaceae

Solanum dulcamara Solanum dulcamara bittersweet nightshade Solanaceae

Solidago canadensis Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod Asteraceae
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

234

Scientific Name Genus Species Common Name Family

Solidago flexicaulis Solidago flexicaulis zigzag goldenrod Compositae

Solidago hispida Solidago hispida hairy goldenrod Compositae

Solidago simplex Solidago simplex dune goldenrod Compositae

Sorbus decora Sorbus decora showy mountain-ash Rosaceae

Sphenopholis 

intermedia Sphenopholis intermedia slender wedgegrass Poaceae

Stachys palustris Stachys palustris marsh hedge-nettle Lamiaceae

Stellaria media Stellaria media common chickweed Caryophyllaceae

Streptopus roseus Streptopus roseus rosy twisted-stalk Liliaceae

Symphoricarpos albus Symphoricarpo

s albus snowberry Caprifoliaceae

Syringa vulgaria Syringa vulgaria lilac Oleaceae

Tanacetum vulgare Tanacetum vulgare common tansy Compositae

Taraxacum officinale Taraxacum officinale dandelion Asteraceae

Taxus canadensis Taxus canadensis Canada yew Taxaceae

Thalictrum dioicum Thalictrum dioicum early meadow-rue Ranunculaceae

Thlaspi arvense Thlaspi arvense pennycress Cruciferae

Thuja occidentalis Thuja occidentalis northern white cedar Cupressaceae

Tilia americana Tilia americana basswood Tiliaceae

Toxicodendron 

rydbergii Toxicodendron rydbergii poison ivy Anacardiaceae

Tragopogon dubius Tragopogon dubius common goat's-beard Compositae

Trientalis borealis Trientalis borealis starflower Primulacae

Trifolium hybridum Trifolium hybridum Alsike clover Leguminosae

Trifolium pratense Trifolium pratense red clover Leguminosae

Trifolium repens Trifolium repens white clover Leguminosae

Trillium grandiflorum Trillium grandiflorum great white trillium Liliaceae

Tsuga canadensis Tsuga canadensis eastern hemlock Pinaceae

Urtica dioica Urtica dioica stinging nettle Urticaceae

Valeriana officinalis Valeriana officinalis garden valerian Valerianaceae

Verbascum thapsus Verbascum thapsus common mullein Scrophulariaceae

Veronica anallisaquatica Veronica anallis-aquatica water speedwell Scrophulariaceae

Veronica arvensis Veronica arvensis corn speedwell Scrophulariaceae

Veronica officinalis Veronica officinalis common speedwell Scrophulariaceae

Vicia americana Vicia americana American vetch Leguminosae

Vicia villosa Vicia villosa hairy vetch Leguminosae

Viola adunca Viola adunca hook-spur violet Violaceae

Viola canadensis Viola canadensis Canada violet Violaceae

Viola labradorica Viola labradorica alpine violet Violaceae

Viola pubescens Viola pubescens yellow violet Violaceae

Zigadenus elegans Zigadenus elegans white camass Liliaceae
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

235

Bird Species

Species Scientific Name Habitat Spring Summer Fall

Loons

Common Loon (Gavia immer) OW (u) o (u)

Grebes

Pied-billed Grebe (Podilymbus podiceps) OW (u) o (u)

Pelicans

American White Pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) OW/RS (u) o (u)

Cormorants

Double-crested Cormorant * (Phalacrocorax auritus) OW/RS/MF a a a

Herons and Bitterns

Great Blue Heron* (Ardea herodias) RS/MF c c c

Black-crowned Night-Heron* (Nycticorax nycticorax) RS/MF u u u

Great Egret* (Ardea alba) RS/MF u u u

Vultures

Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura) FE ( c ) c u

Swans, Geese and Ducks

Canada Goose* (Branta canadensis) OW/RS a c a

Tundra Swan (Cygnus columbianus) OW u u

Mute Swan* (Cygnus olor) OW/RS c c c

Gadwall (Anas strepera) OW (u) (u)

American Wigeon (Anas americana) OW (u) (u)

American Black Duck* (Anas rubripes) OW/RS u u u

Mallard Duck* (Anas platyrhynchos) OW/RS c c c

Blue-winged Teal (Anas discors) OW (u) (u)

Northern Pintail (Anas acuta) OW u u

Green-winged Teal (Anas crecca) OW (u) (u)

Redhead (Aythya americana) OW (u) (u)

Greater Scaup (Aythya marila) OW (u) (u)

Lesser Scaup (Aythya affinis) OW (u) (u)

Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola) OW (u) (u) (u)

Common Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula) OW c c c

Long-tailed Duck (Clangula hyemalis) OW ( c ) ( c )

Hooded Merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus) OW (u) (u)

Common Merganser (Mergus merganser) OW (u) (u) o

Red-breasted Merganser* (Mergus serrator) OW/RS c c c

Hawks and Eagles

Bald Eagle* (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) OW/RS/MF u u u

Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus) FE u u u

Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus) MF r r r

Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) FE/GF/MF c c c

Broad-winged Hawk (Buteo platypterus) (a) u (a)

Falcons

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) r r r

Merlin (Falco columbarius) MF r

Rails and Coots

Sora* (Porzana carolina) W u u u

American Coot (Fulica americana) OW (u) (u)

Cranes

Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis) GM u u u

Shorebirds

Semipalmated Plover (Charadrius semipalmatus) SB (u) (r)

Killdeer* (Charadrius vociferus) RS c c c

Greater Yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca) RS (u) (u) (u)

Lesser Yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes) RS (u) (u) (u)

Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus) SB ( r)

Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularia) RS/SB ( c) u (u)

Dunlin (Calidris alpina) SB (u) (u) (u)

American Woodcock* (Scolopax minor) MF/FE c u

Short-billed Dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus)

Gulls and Terns

Bonaparte's Gull (Larus philadelphia) SB/RS ( c) (u)

Ring-billed Gull* (Larus delawarensis) SB/RS c c c

Herring Gull* (Larus argentatus) RS/SB a a c
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

236

Species Scientific Name Habitat Spring Summer Fall

Great Black-backed Gull* (Larus marinus) RS o o

Common Tern (Sterna hirundo) OW/RS (u) u (u)

Caspian Tern (Sterna caspia) OW/RS c c (u)

Doves 

Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) GM/FE c c c

Cuckoos and Roadrunners

Black-billed Cuckoo* (Coccyzus erythropthalmus) FE u u

Yellow-billed Cuckoo* (Coccyzus americanus) FE u u

Owls

Great Horned Owl* (Bubo virginianus) FE c c c

Nighthawks and Nightjars

Common Nighthawk* (Chordeiles minor) GM (c ) (c )

Swifts

Chimney Swift* (Chaetura pelagica) GM (u) (u)

Hummingbirds

Ruby-throated Hummingbird* (Archilochus colubris) FE ( c ) c (c )

Kingfishers

Belted Kingfisher* (Ceryle alcyon) RS/FE c c c

Woodpeckers

Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus) MF u u u

Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) MF c c c

Red-bellied Woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus) MF c c c

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius) FE/MF (c ) u u

Hairy Woodpecker* (Picoides villosus) MF a a a

Downy Woodpecker* (Picoides pubescens) MF a a a

Northern Flicker* (Colaptes auratus) MF/GM (a) c (a)

Flycatchers

Easter-wood Pewee* (Contopus virens) MF c c u

Alder Flycatcher* (Empidonax alnorum) FE u u u

Willow Flycatcher* (Empidonax traillii) FE u u u

Least Flycatcher* (Empidonax minimus) FE c c u

Eastern Phoebe* (Sayornis phoebe) MF c c c

Great Crested Flycatcher* (Myiarchus crinitus) MF c c c

Eastern Kingbird* (Tyrannus tyrannus) FE c c c

Vireos

Yellow-throated Vireo* (Vireo flavifrons) MF u u u

Red-eyed Vireo* (Vireo olivaceus) MF/FE c c u

Solitary Vireo (Vireo solitarius) MF o o u

Jays, Magpies, and Crows

Blue Jay* (Cyanocitta cristata) MF (a) c (a)

American Crow* (Corvus brachyrhynchos) MF a a a

Common Raven* (Corvus corax) MF c c c

Swallows

Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) FE c c c

Barn Swallow* (Riparia riparia) GM c c c

Cliff Swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) SB/RS c c c

Chickadees and Titmice

Black-capped Chickadee* (Poecile atricapillus) MF a a a

Nuthatches

White-breasted Nuthatch* (Sitta carolinensis) MF u u u

Red-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta canadensis) MF c c c

Creepers

Brown Creeper* (Certhia americana) MF ( c ) u u

Wrens

House Wren* (Troglodytes aedon) FE c c c

Winter Wren* (Troglodytes troglodytes) W c u u

Sedge Wren* (Cistothorus platensis) W c u u

Marsh Wren (Cistothorus palustris) W c u u

Kinglets, Bluebirds, and Thrushes

Golden-crowned Kinglet (Regulus satrapa) MF/FE ( c ) ( c )

Ruby-crowned Kinglet (Regulus calendula) MF/FE ( c ) ( c )

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea) MF (u)

Eastern Bluebird* (Sialia sialis) GM c c c

Veery* (Catharus fuscescens) MF u u

Gray-cheeked Thrush (Catharus minimus) MF (u)
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

237

Species Scientific Name Habitat Spring Summer Fall

Swainson's Thrush (Catharus ustulatus) MF (u)

Hermit Thrush* (Catharus guttatus) MF (u) u

American Robin* (Turdus migratorius) MF/FE (a) c (a)

Mimics

Gray Catbird* (Dumetella carolinensis) FE c c u

Brown Thrasher* (Toxostoma rufum) FE ( c ) c u

European Starling* (Sturnus vulgaris) FE/GM c c c

Waxwings

Cedar Waxwing* (Bombycilla cedrorum) FE c c c

Warblers

Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) MF/FE (u)

Tennessee Warbler (Vermivora peregrina) MF/FE (u)

Nashville Warbler* (Vermivora ruficapilla) FE ( c ) c (u)

Northern Parula (Parula americana) MF (u)

Yellow Warbler* (Dendroica petechia) FE c c c

Chestnut-sided Warbler (Dendroica pensylvanica) FE (u) (u)

Magnolia Warbler (Dendroica magnolia) FE (u)

Cape May Warbler (Dendroica tigrina) MF (u)

Yellow-rumped Warbler (Dendroica coronata) FE (c ) ( c) (u)

Black-throated Green Warbler* (Dendroica virens) MF c c u

Black-throated Blue Warbler (Dendroica caerulescens) MF (u)

Blackburnian Warbler (Dendroica fusca) MF (c ) u u

Pine Warbler (Dendroica pinus) MF (u)

Palm Warbler (Dendroica palmarum) FE (c ) ( c)

Blackpoll (Dendroica striata) MF (u)

Black-and-white Warbler* (Mniotilta varia) MF (u)

American Redstart* (Setophaga ruticilla) FE/W c c (u)

Ovenbird* (Seiurus aurocapilla) MF c c u

Mourning Warbler* (Oporornis philadelphia) MF (c ) (c )

Common Yellowthroat* (Geothlypis trichas) W c c c

Canada Warbler (Wilsonia pusilla) MF (c ) u

Tanangers

Scarlet Tanager* (Piranga olivacea) FE/MF u u u

Sparrows, Buntings, and Grosebeaks

Rufus-Sided Towhee* (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) FE u u u

Chipping Sparrow* (Spizella passerina) GM c a c

Field Sparrow (Spizella pusilla) GM c c c

Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) GM c c u

Song Sparrow* (Melospiza melodia) FE a a a

Lincoln's Sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii) FE (u) (u)

Swamp Sparrow (Melospiza georgiana) W u u (u)

White-throated Sparrow* (Zonotrichia albicollis) FE ( c) (u)

White-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys) FE (u) (u)

Dark-eyed Junco (Junco hyemalis) FE/GM (a) (a)

Northern Cardinal* (Cardinalis cardinalis) MF c c c

Rose-breasted Grosbeak* (Pheucticus ludovicianus) MF c c u

Indigo Bunting* (Passerina cyanea) FE c c c

Blackbirds and Orioles

Red-winged Blackbird* (Agelaius phoeniceus) GM/W c c c

Common Grackle* (Quiscalus quiscula) FE c c c

Brown-headed Cowbird* (Molothrus ater) FE c c c

Baltimore Oriole* (Icterus galbula) FE c c u

Finches

House Finch* (Carpodacus mexicanus) FE u u u

American Goldfinch* (Carduelis tristis) FE/GM c c c

* Denotes species nesting on the refuge
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

238

Abundance Code decode Season Dates

a abundant Spring April-mid-June

c common Summer mid-June- August

o occasional Fall September-November

r rare Winter December-March

u uncommon

( ) during migration

Habitat Code decode

MF Mixed Coniferous/Hardwood Forest

FE Forest Edge

W Wetlands/Ephmeral Ponds

GM Grassy Meadow

SB Sandy Beach/Dunes

RS Rocky Shoreline

OW Open Water/Off-shore Islands
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

239

Reptiles, Amphibians and Mammals of Plum Island

Reptiles

Scientific Name Common Name

Thamnophis sirtalis common garter snake

Storeria dekayi brown snake

Elaphe vulpina Western fox snake

Diadophis puntatus edwarsi Northern ringneck snake

Nerodia sipedon Northern water snake

Amphibians

Scientific Name Common Name

Ambystoma laterale blue-spotted salamander

Notophthalmus viridens central newt

Pseudacris crucifer spring peeper

Bufo americanus American toad

Hyla versicolor Eastern gray tree frog

Mammals

Scientific Name Common Name

Peromyscus maniculatus deer mouse

Odocoileus virginianus white-tailed deer

Canis latrans coyote

Procyon lotor raccoon
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

240

Harbor Island NWR

Plant Species of Harbor Island

Plants of Harbor Island National Wildlife Refuge as depicted by Scharf and Chamberlin 

(1978).Where possible, taxonomy has been updated and generally follows Gray’s Manual of 

Botany; nomenclature follows Cobb’s A Field Guide to the Ferns and Gray’s Manual of Botany.

PTERIDOPHYTA FERNS AND THEIR ALLIES

EQUISETACEAE HORSETAIL OR SCOURING RUSH FAMILY

Equisetum

Equisetum scirpoides Dwarf Souring Rush; Dwarf Horsetail

LYCOPODIACEAE CLUBMOSS FAMILY

Lycopodium

Lycopodium tristachyum Ground Pine; Ground Cedar

OPHIOGLOSSACEAE ADDER’S-TONGUE FAMILY

Botrychium

Botrychium virginianum Rattlesnake Fern

POLYPODIACEAE TRUE FERN OR FERN FAMILY

Dryopteris

Drypoterus disjuncta see Gymnocarpium dryopteris

Gymnocarpium dryopteris Oak Fern

Dryopteris phegopteris Beech fern

Dryopteris spinulosa Spinulose Woodfern

Dryopteris spinulosa var.intermedia (variety of the above)

Pteridium

Pteridium aquilinum Bracken Fern

GYMNOSPERMAE GYMNOSPERMS

PINACEAE PINE FAMILY

Larix

Larix laricina Larch; Tamarack

Pinus

Pinus strobus White Pine

Pinus resinosa Red Pine

Abies

Abies balsamea Balsam Fir

Tsuga

Tsuga canadensis Hemlock

Picea
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

241

Picea mariana Black Spruce 

Picea glauca White Spruce

* CUPRESSACEAE

(included here as a subfamily in the Pinaceae)

Thuja

Thuja occidentalis Arbor Vitae; White Cedar

Juniperus

Juniperus horizontalis Creeping Juniper

MONOCOTYLEDONEAE

TYPHACEAE CAT-TAIL FAMILY

Typha latifolia Common Cat-tail

 

POTAMOGETONACEAE PONDWEED FAMILY

Potamogeton

Potamogeton pectinatus Sago Pondweed

Potamogeton natans

Potamogeton zosteriformis

 

GRAMINAE (POACEAE) GRASS FAMILY

POEAE (Tribe)

Phragmites

Phragmites australis Common Reed 

Poa

Poa compressa Canada Bluegrass

Glyceria 

Glyceria grandis Marsh Grass

TRITICEAE (Tribe)

Agropyron

Agropyron repens Quack Grass

AGROSTIDEAE (Tribe)

Phleum 

Phleum pratense Timothy

CYPERACEAE SEDGE FAMILY

Scirpus 

Scirpus acutus Hardstem Bulrush

Scirpus americanus Threesquare

ARACEAE ARUM FAMILY

Acorus 

Acorus calamus Sweetflag
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

242

RUSCACEAE

Maianthemum

Maianthemum canadense Canada lily

PONTEDERIACEAE PICKEREL-WEED FAMILY

Pontederia

Pontederia cordata Pickeralweed 

 

ORCHIDACEAE ORCHID FAMILY

Corallorhiza

Corallorhiza striata Striped Coral-root

Goodyera

*Goodyera oblongifolia Giant Rattlesnake plantain, 

*Goodyera tesselata Checkered Rattlesnake plantain

Cypripedium

Cypripedium arietinum Ramshead Orchid (Bald Island)

DICOTYLEDONEAE

SALICAEAE WILLOW FAMILY

Populus

Populus tremuloides Quaking Aspen

Populus balsamifera Balsam Poplar

MYRICACAE BAYBERRRY FAMILY

Myrica

Myrica gale Sweet Gale

BETULACEAE (formerly Corylaceae) BIRCH FAMILY

Alnus

Alnus rugosa Speckled Alder; Tag Alder

Betula 

Betula papyrifera Paper, White, or Canoe Birch

Ostrya

Ostrya virginiana Ironwood

FAGACEAE BEECH FAMILY

Quercus Oak

Quercus rubra Red Oak

ULMACEAE ELM FAMILY

Ulmus

Ulmus americana American or White Elm

Ulmus thomasi Rock Elm

POLYGONACEAE SMARTWEED FAMILY

Rumex
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

243

Rumex acetosella Sheep or Red Sorrel

Rumex orbiculatus Water dock

RANUNCULACEAE BUTTERCUP FAMILY

Anemone

Anemone cylindrica Long-headed Thimbleweed

Coptis

Coptis groenlandica Goldthread

(see C. trifolia)

Thalictrum

Thalictrum dioicum Early Meadow Rue

Ranunculus

Ranunculus abortivus Kidney Leaf Buttercup

 

SAXIFRAGACEAE SAXIFRAGE FAMILY

Mitella

Mitella nuda Naked miterwort

ROSACEAE ROSE FAMILY

Rubus 

Rubus strigosus(-idaeus) Wild Red Raspberry

Rosa

Rosa palustris Swamp Rose

Prunus 

Prunus virginiana Choke Cherry

Malus

Malus pumila Apple

Fragaria 

Fragaria vesca Woodland Strawberry

F. virginiana Virginia Strawberry

Potentilla

Potentilla anserina Silverweed

Potentilla recta Rough Cinquefoil 

 

GERANIACEAE GERANIUM FAMILY

Geranium

Geranium robertianum Herb Robert

ANACARDIACEAE CASHEW FAMILY

Toxicodendron

Toxicodendron radicans Poison-ivy

Rhus
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

244

Rhus typhina Staghorn Sumac

CELASTRACEAE BITTERSWEET FAMILY

Celastrus

Celastrus scandens Bittersweet

ACERACEAE MAPLE FAMILY

Acer

Acer saccharum Sugar Maple or Hard Maple

Acer rubrum Red Maple

Acer pensylvanicum Striped Maple

 

VITACEAE GRAPE FAMILY

Vitis

Vitis riparia Wild Grape

GUTTIFERAE (CLUSIACEAE) ST. JOHNSWORT FAMILY

Hypericum

Hypericum perforatum Common St. Johnswort 

VIOLACEAE VIOLET FAMILY

Viola 

Viola conspersa Dog Violet

Viola pallens Smooth White Violet

(see V. macloskeyi)

Viola pubescens Downy Yellow Violet

Viola incognita Large Leaf Violet

ELAEAGNACEAE OLEASTER FAMILY

Shepherdia

Shepherdia canadensis Buffalo Berry 

ONAGRACEAE EVENING-PRIMROSE FAMILY

Oenothera 

Oenothera biennis

UMBELLIFERAE (APIACEAE) CARROT OR PARSLEY FAMILY

Osmorhiza Sweet-cicely

Osmorhiza claytonii Sweet-cicely

Cicuta

Cicuta bulbifera

CORNACEAE DOGWOOD FAMILY

Cornus 

Cornus canadensis Bunchberry; Dwarf Cornel

OLEACEAE OLIVE FAMILY

Fraxinus

Fraxinus nigra Black Ash

Fraxinus americana White Ash
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

245

GENTIANACEAE GENTIAN FAMILY

Gentianaceae

Gentiana crinita

ASCLEPIADACEAE MILKWEED FAMILY

Asclepias 

Asclepias incarnata Swamp Milkweed

Asclepias syriaca Common Milkweed

VERBENACEAE VERVAIN FAMILY

Verbena

Verbena hastata Blue Vervain

LABIATAE (LAMIACEAE) MINT FAMILY

Prunella

Prunella vulgaris Self-heal; Heal-all

Clinopodium

Clinopodium vulgare Wild-basil

Nepeta

Nepeta cataria Catnip; Catmint

Lycopus

Lycopus virginicus Waterhorehound

 

SOLANACEAE NIGHTSHADE FAMILY

Physalis

Physalis heterophylla Ground Cherry

SCROPHULARIACEAE SNAPDRAGON FAMILY

Verbascum 

Verbascum thapsus Mullien; Flannel Plant

 

RUBIACEAE MADDER FAMILY

Galium

Galium triflorum Sweet Scented Bedstraw

Galium boreale Northern Bedstraw

Galium asprellum Rough Bedstraw

CAPRIFOLIACEAE HONEYSUCKLE FAMILY

Sambucus

Sambucus racemosa Red Elderberry

Linnea

Linnea borealis Twin Flower

 

CAMPANULACEAE BELLFLOWER FAMILY

Lobelia

Lobelia siphilitica Great Blue Lobelia
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

246

Lobelia kalmii Brook Lobelia

Lobelia spictata Pale Spike Lobelia

 

COMPOSITAE (ASTERACEAE) ASTER OR DAISY FAMILY

Tragopogon

Tragopogon dubius

(T. major included in above)

Hieracium

Hieracium aurantiacum Orange Hawkweed

Hieracium florentinum Yellow Hawkweed

(see H. piloselloides)

Bidens 

Bidens cernuus Nodding Beggar-ticks

Tanacetum

Tanacetum huronense Lake Huron Tansy

Eupatorium

Eupatorium perfoliatum Boneset

Solidago

Solidago ulmifolia Goldenrod

Solidago erecta Goldenrod

Hypochoeris

Hypochoeris radicata Cats Ear

Erigeron

Erigeron philadelphicus Fleabane

Aster

Aster novae New England Aster

Aster prealtus Willow Aster

Arctium

Arctium minus Common Burdock

Centaurea 

Centaurea maculosa Spotted Knapweed

Cirsium 

Cirsium vulgare Bull Thistle

Cirsium arvense Canada or Field Thistle

Anaphalis

Anaphalis margaritacea Pearly Everlasting

Heliopsis
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

247

Heliopsis helianthoides Ox Eye Daisy

Taraxacum

Taraxacum etrythrospermum Red Seeded Dandelion 

Taraxacum officinale Common Dandelion

OTHER TAXA

Streptopus roseus Rosty Twisted-Stalk

Scrophularia lanceolata Figwort

Gerardia paupercula Purple Gerardia

Urtica dioica Common Nettle

Pilea fontana

Cynoglossum officinale Hounds Tongue

Conopholis americana Squaw Root
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

248

Mammals of Harbor Island

Mammals of Harbor Island National Wildlife Refuge as depicted by Scharf and Chamberlin 

(1978) and including surveys of other authors. 

1

Region 3 Conservation Priorities (FWS 2002)

2

Regional Forester Sensitive (USFS 2003)

3

Michigan Special Animal (1999)

Common Name Scientific Name Ordinal 

Abundance Habitat(s)b

Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus Unknown RES

Red bat Lasiurus borealis Unknown DDF, MDF, DMF, DCF, 

MCF

Snowshoe hare Lepus americanus Abundant DMF, MMF, MCF, DCF

Red squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Abundant DCF, MCF, DMF, MMF

Beaver Castor canadensis Common SHO

Woodland deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus gracilis Abundant SUP, DCF, MCF, DDF, 

MDF, DMF, MMF

Red-backed vole Clethrionomys gapperi Unknown MDF,MMF, MCF, SWE, 

SHO

Coyote Canis latrans Unknown

DDF, MDF, DMF, MMF, 

DCF, MCF, PAS, GRA, 

HAY

Red fox Vulpes vulpes Unknown DDF, OLD, PAS, HAY

Black bear2 Ursus americanus Uncommon DDF, MDF, DMF, MMF, 

DCF, MCF

Raccoon Procyon lotor Unknown DDF, MDF, DMF, MMF

Mink Mustela vison Common OWA, SWA

River otter2 Lutra canadensis Unknown OWA

Canada lynx3 Lynx canadensis Unknown DCF, MCF, WCF

Bobcat2 Lynx rufus Unknown DMF, MMF, DCF, MCF

White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus Abundant

a

Habitat information obtained from: Kurta (2001). 

b

Habitat Definitions (Brewer et al. 1991): DDF= Dry Deciduous Forest or Savanna; MDF= Mesic Deciduous Forest; WDF= Wet 

Deciduous Forest; DMF= Dry Mixed Forest or Savanna; MMF= Mesic Mixed Forest; WMF=Wet Mixed Forest; DCF=Dry Coniferous 

Forest; MCF=Mesic Coniferous Forest; WCF= Wet Coniferous Forest; SUP= Shrub Uplands; SWE= Shrub Wetland; OLD= Old Field; 

GRA= Grassland ; PAS= Pasture; HAY= Hayfield; OWE=Open Wetland; SHO= Shoreland; OWA= Open Water
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

249

Herptofauna of Harbor Island

Common Name Scientific Name Ordinal Rate of Encounter Habitat(s)

Northern water snake Nerodia sipedon sipedon Common

Permanent wetlands, rivers and 

streams

Eastern Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis Abundant

Ephemeral wetlands, permanent 

wetlands, rivers and streams, forests, 

grasslands and savannas, caves and 

springs, agricultural areas, urban 

areas

Northern Ring-necked 

Snake

Diadophis punctatus 

edwardsi Unknown Forests, grasslands and savannas

Northern Spring Peeper Pseudacris crucifer crucifer Abundant

Permanent wetlands, forests, 

grasslands and savannas

Wood Frog Rana sylvatica Common

Ephemeral wetlands, permanent 

wetlands, forests

Eastern American Toad

Bufo americanus 

americanus Abundant

Ephemeral wetlands, permanent 

wetlands, rivers and streams, forests, 

grasslands and savannas, caves and 

springs, agricultural areas, urban 

areas

Spotted Salamander Ambystoma maculatum Unknown

Ephemeral wetlands, permanent 

wetlands, forests

1

Region 3 Conservation Priorities (FWS 2002) 2

Regional Forester Sensitive (USFS 2003)

3

Michigan Special Animal (1999).

Expert review by James H. 

Harding (Michigan State 

University)
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

250

Bird Species of Harbor Island

Birds of Harbor Island National Wildlife Refuge as depicted by Scharf and Chamberlin (1978) 

and including surveys of other authors.

Species of note that have been found more recently breeding in the area are shown in bold

italics (under the “Common Name” column). This list is not exhaustive, as many migrants 

species (especially waterfowl, raptors, and songbirds) are not represented.

1

Region 3 Conservation Priorities (FWS 2002)

2

Regional Forester Sensitive (USFS 2003)

3

Michigan Special Animal (1999)

Common Name Scientific Name

Breeding Status

Preferred Habitat(s) a

Known BreederProbable BreederPotential BreederMigrant or Status Unknown

Common Loon1,2,3 Gavia immer x OWA

Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus x OWA

Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena x OWA

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps x OWA

Double-crested 

Cormorant1 Phalacrocorax auritus x OWA

American Bittern1,3 Botaurus lentiginosus x OWE

Black-crowned Night 

Heron1,2,3 Nycticorax nycticorax x OWE

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias x OWA, OWE

Mute Swan Cygnus olor x OWA

Trumpeter Swan1,2,3 Cygnus buccinator OWA

Canada Goose1 Branta canadensis x OWA

American Black Duck1 Anas rubripes x OWA

Lesser Scaup1 Aythya affinis x OWA

Greater Scaup x OWA

Surf Scoter Melanitta americana x OWA

White-winged Scoter Melanitta nigra x OWA

Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis x OWA

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola x OWA

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula x OWA

Wood Duck1 Aix sponsa x OWA, OWE

Mallard1 Anas platyrhynchos x OWA, OWE

Blue-winged Teal1 Anas discors x OWA, OWE

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca x OWA, OWE

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus x OWA, OWE

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator x OWA, OWE

Common Merganser Mergus merganser x OWA, OWE

Osprey3 Pandion haliaetus x OWA

Bald Eagle1,3 Haliaeetus leucocephalus x OWA

Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus x DCF, DMF, WCF, WMF

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus x DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, WCF, 

WMF

Cooper's Hawk3 Accipiter cooperii x DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, WCF, 

WMF

Northern Goshawk1,2,3 Accipiter gentilis x DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, WCF, 

WMF

Northern Harrier1,2,3 Circus cyaneus x OWE, GRA, HAY, OLD

Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus x DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, WCF, 

WMF

Sora Porzana carolina x OWE
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

251

American Coot Fulica americana x OWA, OWE

Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis x OWE, GRA, HAY, OLD

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus x

Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus x

Greater Yellowlegs1 Tringa melanoleuca x SHO

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius x SHO

Semi-palmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla x SHO

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla x SHO

White-rumped Sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis x SHO

Dunlin Calidris alpina x SHO

Sanderling Calidris alba x SHO

Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres x SHO

American Woodcock Scolopax minor x SHO

Bonaparte's Gull Larus philadelphia x OWA

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis x OWA

Herring Gull Larus argentatus x OWA

Caspian Tern2,3 Hydroprogne caspia x OWA

Common Tern1,2,3 Sterna hirundo x OWA

Black Tern1,2,3 Chlidonias niger x OWA, OWE

Black-billed Cuckoo1 Coccyzus erythropthalmus x SWE, SUP

Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus x DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, WCF, 

WMF

Barred Owl Strix varia x DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, WCF, 

WMF

Northern Hawk Owl Surnia ulula x OWE, GRA, HAY, OLD

Common Nighthawk Caprimulgus vociferus x DCF, GRA, HAY, OLD

Whip-poor-will1 Troglodytes aedon x DCF, GRA, HAY, OLD

Ruby-throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris x DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, WCF, 

WMF, RES

Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon x OWA, OWE

Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus x DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, WCF, 

WMF

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius x DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, WCF, 

WMF

Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens x DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, WCF, 

WMF

Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus x DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, WCF, 

WMF

American Three-toed 

Woodpecker2,3 Picoides dorsalis x DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, WCF, WMF

Northern Flicker1 Colaptes auratus x DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, WCF, 

WMF

Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus x DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, WCF, 

WMF

Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens x DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, WCF, 

WMF

Great Creasted Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus x DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, WCF, 

WMF

Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius x DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, WCF, 

WMF

Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus x DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, WCF, 

WMF

Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata x WCF, WMF

American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos x GRAY, HAY, OLD, RES

Common Raven Corvus corax x DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, WCF, 

WMF

Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor x GRA, HAY, OLD

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica x GRA, HAY, RES, OLD

Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota x GRA, HAY, RES, OLD

Purple Martin Progne subis x RES

Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus x DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, WCF, 

WMF

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis x DCF, DMF, WCF, WMF

Brown Creeper Certhia americana x DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, WCF, 

WMF

House Wren Euphagus cyanocephalus x DCF, GRA, HAY, OLD
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

252

Marsh Wren3 Cistothorus palustris x OWE, SWE

Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes x WCF, WMF

American Robin Turdus migratorius x DCF, DMF, WCF, WMF, RES

Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus x DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, WCF, 

WMF

Veery Catharus fuscescens x DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, WCF, 

WMF

Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus x DCF, DMF

Swainson's Thrush2 Catharus ustulatus x WCF, WMF

European Starling Sturnus vulgaris x RES

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum x

Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla x DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, WCF, 

WMF

Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia x DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, WCF, 

WMF

Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata x DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, WCF, 

WMF

Black-throated Green 

Warbler Dendroica virens x DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, WCF, WMF

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus x DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, WCF, 

WMF

Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica fusca x MCF, MMF

Black-and-White Warbler Mniotilta varia x MCF, MMF, WCF, WMF

Black-throated Blue 

Warbler1,2 Dendroica caerulescens x MDF

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia x OWE, SWE

Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica x SUP

Wilson's Warbler Wilsonia pusilla x SWE

Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrina x WCF, WMF

Northern Parula Parula americana x WCF, WMF

Bay-breasted Warbler2 Dendroica castanea x WCF, WMF

Blackpoll Warbler Dendroica striata x

American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla x SUP, SWE

Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas x SWE

Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea x MDF, MMF

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis x DCF, WCF

White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis x DCF, DMF

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca x RES

White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys x RES

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina x SUP, DCF, OLD

American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea x RES

Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus x SUP, DCF, OLD

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia x SUP, SWE, OLD

Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana x SWE, OWE

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus x OWE

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater x RES

Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus x DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, WCF, 

WMF, RES

Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus x DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, WCF, 

WMF, RES

Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus x MDF, MMF

Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator x WCF, WMF, RES a

Habitat Definitions (Brewer et al. 1991): DDF= Dry Deciduous Forest or Savanna; MDF= Mesic Deciduous Forest; WDF= Wet 

Deciduous Forest; DMF= Dry Mixed Forest or Savanna; MMF= Mesic Mixed Forest; WMF=Wet Mixed Forest; DCF=Dry Coniferous 

Forest; MCF=Mesic Coniferous Forest; WCF= Wet Coniferous Forest; SUP= Shrub Uplands; SWE= Shrub Wetland; OLD= Old Field; 

GRA= Grassland ; PAS= Pasture; HAY= Hayfield; OWE=Open Wetland; SHO= Shoreland; OWA= Open Water
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

253

Huron NWR

Ferns and Gymnosperm Species of the Huron Islands

Huron NWR Gymnosperms

Taxonomy according to Gray’s Manual of Botany, where applicable; nomenclature follows 

Cobb’s A Field Guide to the Ferns and Gray’s Manual of Botany.

PTERIDOPHYTA FERNS AND THEIR ALLIES

EQUISETACEAE HORSETAIL OR SCOURING RUSH FAMILY

Equisetum Horsetail

Equisetum arvense Field Horsetail

LYCOPODIACEAE CLUBMOSS FAMILY

Lycopodium Clubmoss

Lycopodium annotinum Stiff or Bristly Clubmoss

Lycopodium clavatum Staghorn or Wolf’s Claw Clubmoss 

Lycopodium dendroideum Tree Groundpine

Huperzia

Huperzia lucidula Shining Clubmoss

SELAGINELLACEA

Selaginella

Selaginella rupestris Spring Northern 

Selaginella

OSMUNDACEAE FLOWERING FERN FAMILY

Osmunda Flowering Fern

Osmunda regalis Royal Fern 

Osmunda claytoniana Interrupted Fern

DRYOPTERIDACEAE WOOD FERN FAMILY

Dryopteris

Dryopteris carthusiana Spinulose Woodfern

Dryopteris filix-mas Male Fern

Dryopteris intermedia Intermediate Woodfern

Athyrium

Athyrium filix-femina Lady Fern

POLYPODIACEAE TRUE FERN OR FERN FAMILY

Polypodium

Polypodium virginianumRock Polypody

Pteridium

Pteridium aquilinum Bracken Fern
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

254

GYMNOSPERMAE GYMNOSPERMS

PINACEAE PINE FAMILY

Pinus Pine

1. Pinus strobus White Pine

2. Pinus resinosa Red Pine 

Abies Fir

1. Abies balsamea Balsam Fir

Picea Spruce

1. Picea mariana Black Spruce 

2. Picea glauca White Spruce

TAXACEA

Taxus

Taxus canadensis Canada Yew

CUPRESSACEAE

1. Thuja

1. Thuja occidentalis Arbor Vitae; White Cedar

2. Juniperus Juniper

1. Juniperus communis Ground Juniper

Juniperus horizontalis Creeping Juniper
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

255

Plants of the Huron Islands

Taxonomy and nomenclature according to Voss’ Michigan Flora, Parts 1-3.

MONOCOTYLEDONEAE (see Michigan Flora, Part 1)

POACEAE GRASS FAMILY

POEAE (Tribe)

 Poa Bluegrass

Poa compressa Canada Bluegrass

Poa palustris Fowl Meadow Grass

Melica

Melica smithii Smith’s Melicgrass

TRITICEAE (Tribe)

Deschampsia 

Deschampsia cespitosa Tufted Hairgrass

Deschampsia flexuosa Wavy Hairgrass

Danthonia

Danthonia spicata Poverty Oatgrass

AGROSTIDEAE (Tribe)

Calamagrostis Reedgrass

 Calamagrostis canadensis Blue-joint

Calamagrostis stricta Northern Reedgrass

Agrostis Bentgrass

 Agrostis gigantea Redtop

 Agrostis hyemalis Ticklegrass

 PHALARIDEAE (Tribe)

 Phalaris

 Phalaris arundinacea Reed Canarygrass

CYPERACEAE SEDGE FAMILY

 Carex Sedge

Carex arctata Drooping Woodland Sedge

Carex brunnescens

Carex buxbaumii Buxbaum’s Sedge

Carex crinita

Carex echinata

Carex lenticularis

Carex paupercela

Carex trisperma

Carex viridula

Scirpus Bulrush

Scirpus cyperinus Wool-grass

Scirpus caespitosus Tufted Bulrush

JUNCACEAE RUSH FAMILY

 Juncus
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

256

 Juncus tenuis

Juncus brevicaudatus

LILIACEAE LILY FAMILY

Clintonia

Clintonia borealis Bluebead

Hemerocallis

Hemerocallis fulva Orange Daylily

Maianthemum

 1. Maianthemum canadense Wild or False Lily-of-the-valley; 

Canada Mayflower 

IRIDACEAE IRIS FAMILY

 1. Sisyrinchium Blue-eyed-grass

 8. Sisyrinchium montanum

 2. Iris Iris; Flag

 6. Iris versicolor Wild Blue Flag

DICOTYLEDONEAE (see Michigan Flora, Part 2)

SALICAEAE WILLOW FAMILY

Salix Willow

 Salix discolor Pussy Willow

Populus Poplar

 Populus tremuloides Quaking Aspen

MYRICACAE BAYBERRRY FAMILY

Myrica Bayberry; Wax-myrtle

 Myrica gale Sweet Gale

BETULACEAE (formerly Corylaceae) BIRCH FAMILY

Alnus Alder

 Alnus rugosa Speckled Alder; Tag Alder

Betula Birch

 Betula papyrifera Paper, White, or Canoe Birch

FAGACEAE BEECH FAMILY

 Quercus Oak

 Quercus rubra Red Oak

URTICACEAE NETTLE FAMILY

Urtica Nettle

Urtica dioica Stinging Nettle

POLYGONACEAE SMARTWEED FAMILY

Rumex Dock

 Rumex acetosella Sheep or Red Sorrel

Polygonum Smartweed; Knotweed

Polygonum cilinode Fringed False Buckwheat

Polygonum hydropiperoides Mild Water-pepper 
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

257

CARYOPHYLLACEAE PINK FAMILY

 Cerastium Chickweed

 Cerastium fontanum Mouse-ear Chickweed

Dianthus Pink

 Dianthus barbatus Maiden Pink

RANUNCULACEAE BUTTERCUP FAMILY

Aquilegia Columbine

 Aguilegia canadensis Wild Columbine

Thalictrum Meadow-rue

 Thalictrum dasycarpum Purple Meadow-rue

Actaea Baneberry

 Actaea rubra Red Baneberry

Coptis

 Coptis trifolia Goldthread

Ranunculus Buttercup; Crowfoot

Ranunculus acris Tall or Common Buttercup

Ranunculus hispidus Bristly Buttercup

FUMARIACEAE FUMITORY FAMILY

Corydalis

Corydalis sempervirens Rock Harlequin

CRUCIFERAE (BRASSICACEAE) MUSTARD FAMILY

Arabis

Arabis lyrata Lyrate Rockcress

DROSERACEAE SUNDEW FAMILY

 Drosera Sundew

 Drosera rotundifolia Round-leaved Sundew

CRASSULACEAE ORPINE FAMILY

 Sedum Stonecrop; Sedum; Orpine

SAXIFRAGACEAE SAXIFRAGE FAMILY

 *GROSSULARIACEAE GOOSEBERRY FAMILY

 (Often included in the Saxifragaceae)

 Ribes Currant; Gooseberry 

 Ribes glandulosum Skunk Currant

82. ROSACEAE ROSE FAMILY

Agrimonia

Agrimonia striata Roadside Agrimony

Rubus Bramble; Rasberries; Dewberries; Blackberries 

Rubus strigosus(-idaeus) Wild Red Raspberry

Rubus canadensis

Rubus parviflorus Thimbleberry

 Rosa

Rosa acicularis Wild Rose

Sorbus Mountain-ash
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

258

Sorbus decora Northern Mountain Ash

Prunus Cherry; Plum

Prunus virginiana Choke Cherry

Prunus pensylvanica Pin or Fire Cherry

Physocarpus

Physocarpus opulifolius Ninebark

Spiraea Spiraea

Spiraea alba Meadowsweet

Aronia

Aronia melanocarpa Black chokeberry

Amelanchier 

Amelanchier spp. Serviceberry

Amelanchier bartramiana Oblongfruit Serviceberry

Fragaria Strawberry

Fragaria virginiana Virginia Strawberry

Potentilla Cinquefoil; Five-finger

Potentilla arguta Tall Cinquefoil

Potentilla tridentata Three-toothed Cinquefoil

Potentilla norvegica Rough Cinquefoil

Geum

Geum aleppicum

LEGUMINOSAE (FABACEAE) PEA FAMILY

Trifolium Clover

Trifolium repens White Clover

 

GERANIACEAE GERANIUM FAMILY

Geranium Wild Geranium; Crane’s-bill

Geranium bicknellii

AQUIFOLIACEAE HOLLY FAMILY

Ilex Holly

Ilex verticillata Michigan Holly; Winterberry; 

Black Alder

ACERACEAE MAPLE FAMILY

Acer Maple

Acer rubrum Red Maple

Acer pensylvanicum Striped Maple

Acer spicatum Mountain Maple

BALSAMINACEAE TOUCH-ME-NOT FAMILY

Impatiens

Impatiens capensis Spotted Touch-me-not

GUTTIFERAE (CLUSIACEAE) ST. JOHNSWORT FAMILY

Hypericum St. Johnswort

Hypericum punctatum

VIOLACEAE VIOLET FAMILY

Viola Violet
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

259

Viola spp. Violet

ONAGRACEAE EVENING-PRIMROSE FAMILY

 Epilobium Willow-herb

 Epilobium angustifolium Fireweed; Great Willow-herb

ARALIACEAE

Aralia

Aralia nudicaulis Wild Sarsaparilla

Aralia hispida Bristly Sarsaparilla

UMBELLIFERAE (APIACEAE) CARROT OR PARSLEY FAMILY

Heracleum

Heracleum maximum Common Cowparsnip

130. CORNACEAE DOGWOOD FAMILY

Cornus Dogwood

 Cornus canadensis Bunchberry; Dwarf Cornel

 Cornus stolonifera Red-osier
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

260

DICOTYLEDONEAE (see Michigan Flora, Part 3)

PYROLACEAE SHINLEAF OR WINTERGREEN FAMILY

Pyrola Shinleaf; Pyrola

Pyrola elliptica

ERICACEAE HEATH FAMILY

Ledum

Ledum groenlandicum Labrador-tea

Chamaedaphne

Chamaedaphne calyculata Leatherleaf

 

Vaccinium Blueberries and Cranberries

Vaccinium myrtilloides Velvetleaf or Canada Blueberry

 Vaccinium angustifolium Low Sweet Blueberry

Gaultheria

Gaultheria procumbens Teaberry; Wintergreen

Gaultheria hispidula Creeping Snowberry

Arctostaphylos

Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Bearberry; Kinnikinick

PRIMULACEAE PRIMROSE FAMILY

Lysimachia Loosestrife

 Lysimachia terrestris Swamp-candles

Trientalis 

 Trientalis borealis Star-flower

OLEACEAE OLIVE FAMILY

Fraxinus Ash

Fraxinus pensylvanica Green Ash

ASCLEPIADACEAE MILKWEED FAMILY

Asclepias Milkweed

Asclepias incarnata Swamp Milkweed

LABIATAE (LAMIACEAE) MINT FAMILY

Lycopus Bugleweed; Water-horehound

Lycopus uniflorus

Lycopus americanus Water Horehound

Scutellaria Skullcap

Scutellaria lateriflora Blue Skullcap

Clinopodium

Clinopodium vulgare Wild-basil

 Galeopsis

 Galeopsis tetrahit Hemp-nettle

SCROPHULARIACEAE SNAPDRAGON FAMILY

Verbascum Mullien

Verbascum thapsus Mullien; Flannel Plant

Veronica Speedwell; Brooklime

Veronica serpyllifolia
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

261

Melampyrum

Melampyrum lineare Narrowleaf Cowwheat

RUBIACEAE MADDER FAMILY

Galium Bedstraw

Galium triflorum

Galium asprellum

CAPRIFOLIACEAE HONEYSUCKLE FAMILY

Symphoricarpos Snowberry

Symphoricarpos albus Snowberry

Lonicera Honeysuckle

Lonicera dioica Glaucous Honeysuckle

Sambucus Elderberry

Sambucus racemosa Red-berried Elder; Red Elderberry

Linnaea

Linnaea borealis Twinflower

Diervilla

Diervilla lonicera Bush-honeysuckle

CAMPANULACEAE BELLFLOWER FAMILY

Campanula Bellflower

Campanula rotundifolia Bluebell Bellflower

Campanula rapunculoides Rampion Bellflower

Lobelia

Lobelia kalmii Ontario Lobelia

COMPOSITAE (ASTERACEAE) ASTER OR DAISY FAMILY

Group A

Hieracium Hawkweed

Hieracium aurantiacum Orange Hawkweed; Devil’s-paintbrush

 Hieracium florentinum King Devil; Yellow Hawkweed

Hieracium canadense Canadian Hawkweed

Lactuca

Lactuca biennis Tall Blue Lettuce

Group B

Chrysanthemum Chrysanthemum

Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Ox-eye Daisy

Achillea Yarrow

Achillea millefolium Yarrow; Milfoil

Tanacetum Tansy

Tanacetum vulgare

Group C

Eupatorium

Eupatorium maculatus Spotted Joe Pye Weed

Euthamia

Euthamia graminifolia Flat-topped, Bushy, or Grass-leaved 

Goldenrod

Solidago Goldenrod

Solidago canadensis Canada Goldenrod

Solidago hispida Hairy Goldenrod
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

262

Oligoneuron

Oligoneuron album Prairie Goldenrod

Aster Aster

Aster macrophyllus Large- or Big-leaved Aster

Arctium Burdock

Arctium minus Common Burdock

Carduus Plumeless Thistle

Carduus acanthoides

Cirsium Thistle

Cirsium arvense Canada or Field Thistle

Anaphalis

Anaphalis margaritacea Pearly Everlasting

Conyza

Conyza canadensis Horseweed

Prenanthes

Prenanthes alba White Rattlesnake Root

Taraxacum

Taxacum officinale Common Dandelion
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

263

Herptofauna of the Huron Islands

The primary data sources used was: Corin, C.W. 1976. The land vertebrates of the Huron 

Islands, Lake Superior. The Jack-Pine Warbler 54:138-147. Other miscellaneous refuge notes 

were also used.

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat(s)

Northern red-bellied snake

Storeria occipitomaculata 

occipitomaculata

Permanent wetlands, rivers and streams, forests, grasslands 

and savannas, agricultural areas, urban areas

Eastern garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis

Ephemeral wetlands, permanent wetlands, rivers and streams, 

forests, grasslands and savannas, caves and springs, 

agricultural areas, urban areas

Northern spring peeper Pseudacris crucifer crucifer Permanent wetlands, forests, grasslands and savannas

Green frog Rana clamitans melanota

Ephemeral wetlands, permanent wetlands, forests, grasslands 

and savannas

Eastern American toad Bufo americanus americanus

Ephemeral wetlands, permanent wetlands, rivers and streams, 

forests, grasslands and savannas, caves and springs, 

agricultural areas, urban areas

Ambystoma salamander Ambystoma spp.

Ephemeral wetlands, permanent wetlands, forests, grasslands 

and savannas
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

264

Bird Species of the Huron Islands

The primary data sources used was: Corin, C.W. 1976. The land vertebrates of the Huron 

Islands, Lake Superior. The Jack-Pine Warbler 54:138-147. Other miscellaneous refuge notes 

were also used.

1

Region 3 Conservation Priorities (FWS 2002)

2

Regional Forester Sensitive (USFS 2003) 3

Michigan Special Animal (1999).

Common Name Scientific Name

Abundance by Species that are 

Possible, Probable, or Confirmed 

Breeders

Preferred Habitat(s)

Abundant

Common

Uncommon

OccasionalRare-Vagrant 

Non-Breeders

Common Loon1,2,3 Gavia immer X OWA

Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena X OWA

Double-crested

Cormorant1 Phalacrocorax auritus X OWA

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias X OWA, OWE

Canada Goose1 Branta canadensis X OWA

American Black Duck1 Anas rubripes X OWA

Mallard1 Anas platyrhynchos X OWA, OWE

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator X OWA, OWE

Common Merganser Mergus merganser X OWA, OWE

Osprey3 Pandion haliaetus X OWA

Bald Eagle1,3 Haliaeetus leucocephalus X OWA

Peregrine Falcon1,2,3 Falco peregrinus OWE, GRA, HAY

Merlin Falco columbarious

American Kestrel Falco sparverius GRA, HAY, OLD

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus X GRA, HAY, OLD

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius X SHO

Wilson’s Phalarope Steganopus tricolor X

Herring Gull Larus argentatus X OWA

Caspian Tern2,3 Hydroprogne caspia OWA

Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica X RES

Common Nighthawk Caprimulgus vociferus X DCF, GRA, HAY, OLD

Ruby-throated 

Hummingbird Archilochus colubris X DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, WCF, WMF, RES

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Northern Flicker1 Colaptes auratus DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus X GRA, HAY, OLD

Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Yellow-bellied Flycatcher2 Empidonax flaviventris X DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus X DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF a

Habitat Definitions (Brewer et al. 1991): DDF= Dry Deciduous Forest or Savanna; MDF= Mesic Deciduous Forest; WDF= Wet 

Deciduous Forest; DMF= Dry Mixed Forest or Savanna; MMF= Mesic Mixed Forest; WMF=Wet Mixed Forest; DCF=Dry 

Coniferous Forest; MCF=Mesic Coniferous Forest; WCF= Wet Coniferous Forest; SUP= Shrub Uplands; SWE= Shrub Wetland; 

OLD= Old Field; GRA= Grassland ; PAS= Pasture; HAY= Hayfield; OWE=Open Wetland; SHO= Shoreland; OWA= Open Water
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

265

(Continued)

1

Region 3 Conservation Priorities (FWS 2002) 2

Regional Forester Sensitive (USFS 2003)

3

Michigan Special Animal (1999). 

Common Name Scientific Name

Abundance by Species that are 

Possible,

Probable, or Confirmed Breeders in 

Schoolcraft County

Preferred Habitat(s)

Abundant

Common

Uncommon

OccasionalRare-Vagrant 

Non-Breeders

Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus X GRA, HAY, OLD

Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe GRAY, HAY, OLD, RES

Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus X DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata X WCF, WMF

American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos X GRAY, HAY, OLD, RES

Common Raven Corvus corax X DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor X GRA, HAY, OLD

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica X GRA, HAY, RES, OLD

Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota X GRA, HAY, RES, OLD

Purple Martin Progne subis X RES

Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus X DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis X DCF, DMF, WCF, WMF

House Wren Euphagus cyanocephalus X DCF, GRA, HAY, OLD

Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes X WCF, WMF

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satropa

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula X WCF

American Robin Turdus migratorius X DCF, DMF, WCF, WMF, 

RES

Swainson’s Thrush2 Catharus ustulatus X WCF, WMF

European Starling Sturnus vulgaris RES

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum X

Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla X DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia X DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata X DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Black-throated Green 

Warbler Dendroica virens X DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, WCF, WMF

Pine Warbler Pendroica pinus

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus X DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica fusca X MCF, MMF a

Habitat Definitions (Brewer et al. 1991): DDF= Dry Deciduous Forest or Savanna; MDF= Mesic Deciduous Forest; WDF= Wet 

Deciduous Forest; DMF= Dry Mixed Forest or Savanna; MMF= Mesic Mixed Forest; WMF=Wet Mixed Forest; DCF=Dry 

Coniferous Forest; MCF=Mesic Coniferous Forest; WCF= Wet Coniferous Forest; SUP= Shrub Uplands; SWE= Shrub Wetland; 

OLD= Old Field; GRA= Grassland ; PAS= Pasture; HAY= Hayfield; OWE=Open Wetland; SHO= Shoreland; OWA= Open Water
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

266

(Continued)

1

Region 3 Conservation Priorities (FWS 2002) 2

Regional Forester Sensitive (USFS 2003)

3

Michigan Special Animal (1999). 

Common Name Scientific Name

Abundance by Species that are 

Possible,

Probable, or Confirmed Breeders in 

Schoolcraft County

Preferred Habitat(s)

Abundant

Common

Uncommon

OccasionalRare-Vagrant 

Non-Breeders

Black-and-White Warbler Mniotilta varia X MCF, MMF, WCF, WMF

Canada Warbler1 Wilsonia canadensis X MDF, WMF, MMF

Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica X SUP

Mourning Warbler Oporornis philadelphia X SUP

Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrina X WCF, WMF

Northern Parula Parula americana X WCF, WMF

Blackpoll Warbler Dendroica striata X

American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla X SUP, SWE

Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas X SWE

Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis X RES

Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea X SUP, MMF

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis DCF, WCF

White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis X

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina X SUP, DCF, OLD

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia X SUP, SWE, OLD

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus X OWE

Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula X OWE

Bobolink1,2 Dolichonyx oryzivorus X GRA, HAY, OLD, PAS

White-winged Crossbill Loxia leucoptera DCF, DMF, WCF, WMF

Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus X DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF, RES

Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus X DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF, RES a

Habitat Definitions (Brewer et al. 1991): DDF= Dry Deciduous Forest or Savanna; MDF= Mesic Deciduous Forest; WDF= Wet 

Deciduous Forest; DMF= Dry Mixed Forest or Savanna; MMF= Mesic Mixed Forest; WMF=Wet Mixed Forest; DCF=Dry 

Coniferous Forest; MCF=Mesic Coniferous Forest; WCF= Wet Coniferous Forest; SUP= Shrub Uplands; SWE= Shrub Wetland; 

OLD= Old Field; GRA= Grassland ; PAS= Pasture; HAY= Hayfield; OWE=Open Wetland; SHO= Shoreland; OWA= Open Water
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

267

Mammals of the Huron Islands

Mammals of Seney National Wildlife Refuge listed phylogenetically. 

The primary data sources used was: Corin, C.W. 1976. The land vertebrates of the Huron 

Islands, Lake Superior. The Jack-Pine Warbler 54:138-147. Other miscellaneous refuge notes 

were also used.

1

Region 3 Conservation Priorities (FWS 2002)

2

Regional Forester Sensitive (USFS 2003)

3

Michigan Special Animal (1999)

Common Name Scientific Name Ordinal 

Abundance Habitat(s)a Habitat(s)b

Red bat Lasiurus borealis Unknown Leafy trees (elms, maples) or in conifers DDF, MDF, DMF, 

DCF, MCF

Snowshoe hare Lepus 

americanus Abundant

Heavily forested areas with dense 

understory. Thrives in coniferous and 

mixed woods including cedar bogs and 

spruce swamps.

DMF, MMF, MCF, 

DCF

Woodland deer 

mouse

Peromyscus 

maniculatus 

gracilis

Abundant Forested habitats, shrubby areas, 

regenerating clear-cuts, and recent burns.

SUP, DCF, MCF, 

DDF, MDF, DMF, 

MMF

Red-backed vole Clethrionomys 

gapperi Common

Coniferous forests are preferred, deciduous 

or mixed coniferous/deciduous woods 

acceptable with standing water nearby.

MDF,MMF, MCF, 

SWE, SHO

Meadow vole Microtus 

pennsylvanicus Common

Moist, grassy fields and also frequents 

marshes and bog thick with greases, 

sedges and rushes.

SWE, OLD, OWE

Coyote Canis latrans Common Prairies, brushy area, wooded edges

DDF, MDF, DMF, 

MMF, DCF, MCF, 

PAS, GRA, HAY

Black bear2 Ursus 

americanus Common Dense coniferous or deciduous woods having a thick understory.

DDF, MDF, DMF, 

MMF, DCF, MCF

Raccoon Procyon lotor Common

In or near wooded areas, often near a 

stream or pond. More abundant in 

hardwood stands than coniferous

DDF, MDF, DMF, 

MMF

a

Habitat information obtained from: Kurta (2001). 

b

Habitat Definitions (Brewer et al. 1991): DDF= Dry Deciduous Forest or Savanna; MDF= Mesic Deciduous Forest; WDF= Wet 

Deciduous Forest; DMF= Dry Mixed Forest or Savanna; MMF= Mesic Mixed Forest; WMF=Wet Mixed Forest; DCF=Dry 

Coniferous Forest; MCF=Mesic Coniferous Forest; WCF= Wet Coniferous Forest; SUP= Shrub Uplands; SWE= Shrub Wetland; 

OLD= Old Field; GRA= Grassland ; PAS= Pasture; HAY= Hayfield; OWE=Open Wetland; SHO= Shoreland; OWA= Open Water
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

268

Michigan Islands NWR

Plants of Gull Island

Plants of Gull Island (Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuge) according to the ongoing 

studies of Leuck and Lueck. Where possible, taxonomy has been updated and generally follows 

Gray’s Manual of Botany; nomenclature follows Cobb’s A Field Guide to the Ferns and Gray’s 

Manual of Botany.

Abies

Abies balsamea Balsam Fir

Thuja

Thuja occidentalis Arbor Vitae; White Cedar

Juniperus

Juniperus horizontalis Creeping Juniper

Maianthemum

Maianthemum canadense Canada lily, Canada mayflower

Alnus

Alnus rugosa Speckled Alder; Tag Alder

Betula 

Betula papyrifera Paper, White, or Canoe Birch

Prunus 

Prunus virginiana Choke Cherry

Potentilla

Potentilla anserina Silverweed

 

Toxicodendron

Toxicodendron radicans Poison-ivy

Rhus

Rhus typhina Staghorn Sumac

Acer

Acer saccharum Sugar Maple or Hard Maple

 

Hypericum

Hypericum perforatum Common St. Johnswort 

Verbascum 

Verbascum thapsus Mullien; Flannel Plant

 

Cirsium 
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

269

Cirsium vulgare Bull Thistle

OTHER TAXA

Urtica dioica Common Nettle

Aquilegia spp. Columbine

Solidago spp. Goldenrod

Trillium spp. Trillium

Viola spp. Violet

Myosotis spp. Forget-me-not

Impatiens spp. Jewelweed

Descurainia spp. Tansymustard

Aralia nudicaulis Wild Sarsaparilla

Galium spp. Bedstraw

Acer spicatum Mountain maple

Sorbus Americana Mountain ash

Prunus serotina Black Cherry

Physocarpus opulifolius Ninebark

Taxus canadensis Canada Yew

Heracleum maximum Cow-parsnip

Botrypus virginianus Rattlesnake fern

Lycopodiaceae

(2 spp.)

Dropteris spp. Wood fern

Streptopus spp. White twisted-stalk

Lonicera spp. Honeysuckle

Sambucus spp. Red elder, Red-berried elder

Thalictrum spp. Meadow rue

Clintonia borealis Blue-bead lily
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

270

Maianthemum racemosum False Solomon’s seal

Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash

Cornus sericea Red-osier dogwood

Viburnum trilobum High-bush cranberry

Viburnum acerifolium Maple-leaf viburnum

Sedum acre Stonecrop

Cakile edentula Sea-rocket
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

271

Plants of Hat Island

Plant species list based on the work of F.C. Gates (1950). Transactions of the Kansas Academy 

of Science 53:217-228.

Genus species Common

Achillea millefolium Yarrow

Agrostis capillaris Colonial bentgrass

Amelanchier canadensis Canadian serviceberry

Aquilegia canadensis Canadian Columbine

Arabis glabra Tower mustard

Arctium minus Burrweed

Asclepias syriaca Common milkweed

Bromus tectorum Drooping brome or Cheat grass

Betula papyrifera Paper birch

Brassica nigra Black mustard

Campanula rotundifolia Harebell

Capnoides sempervirens Pale corydalis

Capsella burs-pastoris Shepherd's purse

Carex peckii Peck’s sedge

Carex sterilis Fen Star Sedge

Celastrus scandens American bittersweet

Cerastium arvense Field chickweed

Chenopodium album White goosefoot

Ceratodon purpureus Ceratodon moss or Fire moss

Chrysanthemum leucanthemum pinnatifidum Ox-eyed daisy

Cirsium vulgare Spear thistle or Bull thistle

Comandra richardsiana False toadflax

Cornus stolonifera Red osier dogwood

Cryptotaenia canadensis Honewort 

Descurainia pinnata Western tansymustard

Diervilla lonicera Northern bush-honeysuckle

Dryopteris spp. Wood ferns 

Elymus canadensis Canada wild rye

Epilobium angustifolium Fireweed 

Euphorbia esula Green spurge or Leafy spurge 

Fragaria virginiana Virginia Strawberry

Galium aparine Cleavers or Clivers

Geranium robertianum Robert geranium

Heracleum lanatum Cow parsnip

Juncus arcticus littoralis Mountain rush 

Lepidium campestre Field pepperweed

Lonicera dioica Limber honeysuckle

Lychnis dioica Red Champion 

Milium effusum American milletgrass

Nepeta cataria Catnip 

Oenothera biennis Common evening primrose or Evening star

Pastinaca sativa Parsnip

Phleum pratense Timothy grass

Poa compressa Canada bluegrass or flattened meadowgrass
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

272

Poa pratensis Meadow Grass or Kentucky bluegrass 

Polygonum convolvulus Black-bindweed or Wild buckwheat

Polygonum ramosissimum Bushy knotweed 

Populus tremuloides Quaking aspen

Argentina anserina Common silverweed

Potentilla norvegica Rough cinquefoil

Prunus pensylvanica Pin cherry or Fire cherry 

Prunus pumila Sand cherry 

Prunus virginiana Choke Cherry

Ranunculus abortivus Littleleaf buttercup

Toxicodendron radicans Poison ivy

Ribes cynosbati Eastern prickly gooseberry

Rosa blanda Smooth rose

Rubus strigosus American Red Raspberry

Rumex crispus Curled dock or yellow dock

Sambucus racemosa Red elderberry

Satureja vulgaris Wild basil

Silene antirrhina Sleepy silene or sleepy catchfly

Maianthemum stellatum Star-flowered or False Solomon’s seal

Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod

Sorbus americana American mountain-ash

Taraxacum officinale Common Dandelion

Thuja occidentalis Northern White Cedar

Tragopogon dubius Western Salsify

Verbascum thapsus Common Mullein

Viburnum opulus Guelder rose or Water elder
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

273

Avian Species (Beaver Island Archipelago)

Avian Species on Seney NWR – Michigan Islands Satellite Refuges

Beaver Archipelago, 2000-2009

Nancy E. Seefelt

Central Michigan University

Gull Island

Common Loon (offshore) Blackburnian Warbler

Herring Gull Black-throated Green Warbler

Ring-billed Gull Common Yellowthroat

Caspian Tern American Redstart

Common Tern Gray Catbird

Double-crested Cormorant Winter Wren

American White Pelican (offshore, flying) House Wren

Common Merganser Black-capped Chickadee

Red-breasted Merganser Veery

Mallard Hermit Thrush

White-winged Scoter (offshore) Yellow Warbler

Canada Goose Yellow-rumped Warbler

Mute Swan Magnolia Warbler

American Bittern

Great Blue Heron

Black-crowned Night-Heron

Sora

American Woodcock

Least Sandpiper

Solitary Sandpiper

Spotted Sandpiper

Killdeer

Semipalmated Plover

Ruddy Turnstone

Mourning Dove

Bald Eagle

Northern Harrier

Merlin

Great Horned Owl

Belted Kingfisher

Least Flycatcher

Eastern Phoebe

American Crow

Common Raven

European Starling

Red-winged Blackbird

Common Grackle

American Goldfinch

Indigo Bunting

White-throated Sparrow

Song Sparrow

Chipping Sparrow

Cedar Waxwing

Red-eyed Vireo

Black-and-white Warbler

Nashville Warbler
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

274

Pismire Island

Common Loon (offshore)

Herring Gull

Ring-billed Gull

Caspian Tern

Common Tern

Double-crested Cormorant

American White Pelican

Common Merganser

Red-breasted Merganser

Mallard

Greater Scaup (offshore)

Lesser Scaup (offshore)

Ring-necked Duck (offshore)

Common Goldeneye (offshore)

Bufflehead (offshore)

White-winged Scoter (offshore)

Canada Goose

Mute Swan

Great Blue Heron

American Coot (offshore)

Least Sandpiper

Spotted Sandpiper

Black-bellied Plover

Killdeer

Ruddy Turnstone

Bald Eagle (flying, also dead)

Osprey (flying)

American Crow

Red-winged Blackbird

Common Grackle

Song Sparrow

Yellow Warbler

Common Yellowthroat
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

275

Hat Island

Common Loon (offshore)

Herring Gull

Ring-billed Gull

Caspian Tern

Common Tern

Double-crested Cormorant

American White Pelican

Common Merganser

Red-breasted Merganser

Mallard

Greater Scaup (offshore)

Common Goldeneye (offshore)

Bufflehead (offshore)

White-winged Scoter (offshore)

Canada Goose

Mute Swan

Great Blue Heron

Black-crowned Night-heron

Least Sandpiper

Solitary Sandpiper

Spotted Sandpiper

Unidentified Sandpiper

Black-bellied Plover

Semipalmated Plover

Killdeer

Ruddy Turnstone

Snowy Owl (dead)

Red-winged Blackbird

Common Grackle

Song Sparrow

Yellow Warbler

Common Yellowthroat

Shoe Island

Herring Gull

Ring-billed Gull

Double-crested Cormorant

Least Sandpiper

Unidentified Sandpiper

Black-belled Plover

Ruddy Turnstone
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

276

Gull Island Plants

Gull Island Vegetation Additional Species—2009

These are species observed in addition to the species recorded in the 2007 report. We

established two more transects on the west side of the island.

St. Johnswort

columbine

poison ivy

staghorn sumac

forget-me-not

bull thistle

jewelweed

mullein

goldenrod

tansy mustard

trillium

violet (unidentified)

wild sarsaparilla

fern (unidentified)

bedstraw

mountain maple

sugar maple
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

277

Bird Species (Gull, Hat, Shoe, and Pismire Islands)

Birds of Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuge (Gull, Hat, Shoe, and Pismire Islands) by 

island (N. Seefelt, Central Michigan University, 2000-2009).

This list is not comprehensive as most survey work has been done during the breeding season 

and not year-round. Areas around these islands are known to support large numbers of 

waterfowl (especially northern diving species) during migration. Source citations are shown by 

(Author Year).

1

Region 3 Conservation Priorities (FWS 2002)

2

Regional Forester Sensitive (USFS 2003)

3

Michigan Special Animal (1999). 

Common Name Scientific Name

Gull Island

Hat Island

Shoe Island

Pismire 

Island

Preferred Habitat(s)

Common Loon1,2,3 Gavia immer x x x OWA

American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos x x x OWA

Double-crested 

Cormorant1 Phalacrocorax auritus x x x x OWA

American Bittern1,3 Botaurus lentiginosus x OWE

Black-crowned Night 

Heron1,2,3 Nycticorax nycticorax x x OWE

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias x x x OWA, OWE

Mute Swan Cygnus olor x x x OWA

Canada Goose1 Branta canadensis x x x OWA

Greater Scaup Aythya marila x x

Lesser Scaup1 Aythya affinis x OWA

White-winged Scoter Melanitta nigra x x x OWA

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola x x OWA

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula x x OWA

Mallard1 Anas platyrhynchos x x x OWA, OWE

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris x OWA, OWE

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator x x x OWA, OWE

Common Merganser Mergus merganser x x x OWA, OWE

Osprey3 Pandion haliaetus x OWA

Bald Eagle1,3 Haliaeetus leucocephalus x x OWA

Merlin3 Falco columbarius x DCF, DMF, MCF, 

MMF, WCF, WMF

Northern Harrier1,2,3 Circus cyaneus x OWE, GRA, HAY, OLD

American Coot Fulica americana x OWA, OWE

Sora Porzana carolina x OWE

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus x x x GRA, HAY, OLD

American Woodcock1 Scolopax minor x SUP

Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria x x SHO

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius x x x SHO

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla x x x x SHO

Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola x x x OWE

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus x x OWE

Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres x x x x SHO

Bonaparte's Gull Larus philadelphia OWA

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis x x x x OWA

Herring Gull Larus argentatus x x x x OWA

Caspian Tern2,3 Hydroprogne caspia x x x OWA

Common Tern1,2,3 Sterna hirundo x x x OWA

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura x RES

Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus x DCF, DMF, MCF, 

MMF, WCF, WMF

Snowy Owl Bubo scandiacus x OWE, GRA, HAY, OLD
Appendix D: Species Lists

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

278

Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon x OWA, OWE

Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus x GRA, HAY, OLD

Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe x GRAY, HAY, OLD, 

RES

Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus x DCF, DMF, MCF, 

MMF, WCF, WMF

American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos x x GRAY, HAY, OLD, 

RES

Common Raven Corvus corax x DCF, DMF, MCF, 

MMF, WCF, WMF

Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus x DCF, DMF, MCF, 

MMF, WCF, WMF

House Wren Euphagus cyanocephalus x DCF, GRA, HAY, OLD

Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes x WCF, WMF

Veery Catharus fuscescens x DCF, DMF, MCF, 

MMF, WCF, WMF

Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus x DCF, DMF

Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis x SWE, SUP

European Starling Sturnus vulgaris x RES

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum x

Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla x DCF, DMF, MCF, 

MMF, WCF, WMF

Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia x DCF, DMF, MCF, 

MMF, WCF, WMF

Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata x DCF, DMF, MCF, 

MMF, WCF, WMF

Black-throated Green 

Warbler Dendroica virens x DCF, DMF, MCF, MMF, WCF, WMF

Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica fusca x MCF, MMF

Black-and-White Warbler Mniotilta varia x MCF, MMF, WCF, 

WMF

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia x x x OWE, SWE

American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla x SUP, SWE

Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas x x x SWE

Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea x SUP, MMF

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina x SUP, DCF, OLD

White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis x DCF, DMF

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia x x x SUP, SWE, OLD

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus x x x OWE

Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula x x x OWE

American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis x SUP, RES a

Habitat Definitions (Brewer et al. 1991): DDF= Dry Deciduous Forest or Savanna; MDF= Mesic Deciduous Forest; WDF= Wet 

Deciduous Forest; DMF= Dry Mixed Forest or Savanna; MMF= Mesic Mixed Forest; WMF=Wet Mixed Forest; DCF=Dry 

Coniferous Forest; MCF=Mesic Coniferous Forest; WCF= Wet Coniferous Forest; SUP= Shrub Uplands; SWE= Shrub Wetland; 

OLD= Old Field; GRA= Grassland ; PAS= Pasture; HAY= Hayfield; OWE=Open Wetland; SHO= Shoreland; OWA= Open Water
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

279

Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Administrative Procedures Act of 1946

Outlines administrative procedures to be followed by federal agencies with respect to 

identification of information to be made public; publication of material in the Federal Register; 

maintenance of records; attendance and notification requirements for specific meetings and 

hearings; issuance of licenses; and review of agency actions. 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 

Establishes as policy of the United States the protection and preservation for American Indians 

of their inherent right to freedom to believe, express, and practice their traditional religions. The 

Act directs federal agencies to evaluate their policies and procedures, in consultation with native 

traditional religious leaders, in order to determine changes required to protect and preserve 

Native American religious cultural rights and practices. 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 

2008

Prohibits discrimination of individuals based on disability. It requires that public transportation 

services be accessible to individuals with disabilities and prohibits discrimination in employment 

of qualified individuals with disabilities. It requires the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission to issue regulations relating to discrimination of disabled individuals, and requires 

the National Council on Disability to conduct a study of areas designated as wilderness to 

determine the effect of the designation on the ability of individuals to enjoy such areas. The ADA 

Amendments Act of 2008 restored the intent and protections of the original act.

Antiquities Act of 1906

Authorizes the President to designate as National Monuments objects or areas of historic or 

scientific interest on lands owned or controlled by the United States. The Act requires that a 

permit be obtained for examination of ruins, excavation of archaeological sites, and the 

gathering of objects of antiquity on lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretaries of Interior, 

Agriculture, and Army; and provides penalties for violations.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 

Largely supplanted the resource protection provisions of the Antiquities Act for archaeological 

items. This Act established detailed requirements for issuance of permits for any excavation for 

or removal of archaeological resources from federal or Indian lands. It also established civil and 

criminal penalties for the unauthorized excavation, removal, or damage of any such resources; 

for any trafficking in such resources removed from federal or Indian land in violation of any 

provision of federal law; and for interstate and foreign commerce in such resources acquired, 

transported or received in violation of any state or local law. This act also required the land 

managing agencies to establish public awareness programs regarding the value of 

archaeological resources to the Nation. 

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1960, as amended

This act carries out the policy established by the Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act of 

1935 (known as the Historic Sites Act). It directs federal agencies to notify the Secretary of the 

Interior whenever they find a federal or federally assisted, licensed, or permitted project may 

cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, prehistoric, or archaeological data. The Act 

authorizes use of appropriated, donated, and/or transferred funds for the recovery, protection,

and preservation of such data. 
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

280

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974

Directs the preservation of historic and archaeological data in federal construction projects.

Architectural Barriers Act of 1969 

Ensures that certain buildings financed or leased by federal agencies are constructed (or 

renovated) so that they will be accessible to the physically handicapped.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended 

Prohibits the possession, sale, or transport of any bald or golden eagle, alive or dead, or part, 

nest, or egg except as permitted by the Secretary of the Interior for scientific or exhibition 

purposes or for the religious purposes of Indians.

Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937

Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a program of land conservation and utilization in 

order to correct maladjustments in land use and thus assist in such things as control of soil 

erosion, reforestation, preservation of natural resources, and protection of fish and wildlife. 

Some early refuges and hatcheries were established under authority of this Act.

Clean Air Act of 1970 

Regulates air emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources. The Act and its 

amendments charge federal land managers with direct responsibility to protect the “air quality 

and related values” of land under their control. These values include fish, wildlife, and their 

habitats.

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986

Authorized the purchase of wetlands from Land and Water Conservation Fund moneys, 

removing a prior prohibition on such acquisitions. Requires the Secretary of the Interior to 

establish a National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan, requires the states to include 

wetlands in their comprehensive outdoor recreation plans, and transfers to the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund amounts equal to import duties on arms and ammunition. It established 

entrance fees at national wildlife refuges. It also extended the Wetlands Loan Act authorization 

through 1988 and required the Secretary to report to Congress on wetlands loss. 

In addition, it directed the Secretary, through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to continue the 

National Wetlands Inventory; to complete mapping of the contiguous United States; and to 

produce at ten-year intervals reports to update and improve in the September 1982 "Status and 

Trends of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitat in the Coterminous United States, 1950s to 1970s." 

This act also increased the price of duck stamps.

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

Directs federal agencies to take actions that would further the purposes of the Act and to ensure 

that actions they carry out, authorize, or fund do not jeopardize endangered species or their 

critical habitat. The Act also provides authority for land acquisition. Conservation of threatened 

and endangered species has become a major objective of both land acquisition and refuge 

management programs. 

Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969

This act expanded the provisions of the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 to 

include the listing of species in danger world-wide and added mollusks and crustaceans to the 

animals that could be listed.
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

281

Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966

This act was the predecessor to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and directed the 

Secretary of the Interior to produce a list of native U.S. vertebrate species in danger of 

extinction for the limited protection of those animals.

Environmental Education Act of 1990

Established the Office of Environmental Education within the Environmental Protection Agency 

to develop and administer a federal environmental education program in consultation with other 

federal natural resource management agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Executive Order 11593: Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (1971)

States that if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes any development activities that may 

affect the archaeological or historic sites, the Service will consult with federal and state Historic 

Preservation Officers to comply with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966, as amended.

Executive Order 11644: Use of Off-road Vehicles on the Public Lands (1972)

Established policies and procedures to ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands 

will be controlled and directed to protect the resources of those lands, to promote the safety of 

all users of those lands, and minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands. EO 

11989 (1977) amends section 2 of EO 11644 and directs agencies to close areas negatively 

impacted by off-road vehicles.

Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management (1977)

Prevents federal agencies from contributing to the “adverse impacts associated with occupancy 

and modification of floodplains” and the “direct or indirect support of floodplain development.” In 

the course of fulfilling their respective authorities, federal agencies “shall take action to reduce 

the risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and 

restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains.

Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands (1977)

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 (1982)

Seeks to foster intergovernmental partnerships by requiring federal agencies to use the state 

process to determine and address concerns of state and local elected officials with proposed 

federal assistance and development programs.

Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations (1994 )

Mandates that each federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its 

mission by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations. This order also creates an Interagency Working Group on Environmental 

Justice to provide guidance to federal agencies in overcoming these issues. 

Executive Order 12906: Coordinating Geographical Data Acquisition and Access: The 

National Spatial Data Infrastructure (1994), as amended by Executive Order 13286:
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

282

Amendment of Executive Orders, and Other Actions, in Connection With the Transfer of 

Certain Functions to the Secretary of Homeland Security (2003)

Recommended that the executive branch develop, in cooperation with state, local, and tribal 

governments, and the private sector, a coordinated National Spatial Data Infrastructure to 

support public and private sector applications of geospatial data. Of particular importance to 

Comprehensive Conservation Plans is the National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS), 

which is the adopted standard for vegetation mapping. Using NVCS facilitates the compilation of 

regional and national summaries, which, in turn, can provide an ecosystem context for individual 

refuges.

Executive Order 12962: Recreational Fisheries (1995)

Directs federal agencies to improve the quantity, function, sustainable productivity, and 

distribution of United States aquatic resources for increased recreational fishing opportunities in 

cooperation with states and tribes.

Executive Order 12996: Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (1996)

Defines a conservation mission for the National Wildlife Refuge System, six compatible wildlifedependent recreational activities, and four guiding principles for management of the Refuge 

System. Directs the Secretary of the Interior to undertake several actions in support of 

management and public use and to ensure the maintenance of the biological integrity and 

environmental health of the Refuge System. It also provides for the identification of existing 

wildlife-dependent uses that will continue to occur as lands are added to the Refuge 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. 

Executive Order 13061: Federal Support of Community Efforts Along American Heritage 

Rivers (1997)

Established the American Heritage Rivers initiative for the purpose of natural resource and 

environmental protection, economic revitalization, and historic and cultural preservation. The Act 

directs federal agencies to preserve, protect, and restore rivers and their associated resources 

important to our history, culture, and natural heritage.

Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments 

(2000)

Provides a mechanism for establishing regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration 

with tribal officials in the development of federal policies that have tribal implications.

Executive Order 13112: Invasive Species (1999)

Directs federal agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive species, detect and respond 

rapidly to and control populations of such species in a cost effective and environmentally sound 

manner, accurately monitor invasive species, provide for restoration of native species and 

habitat conditions, conduct research to prevent introductions, to control invasive species, and to 

promote public education on invasive species and the means to address them. This EO 

replaces and rescinds EO 11987: Exotic Organisms (1977).

Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds 

(2001)
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

283

Instructs federal agencies to conserve migratory birds by several means, including the 

incorporation of strategies and recommendations found in Partners in Flight Bird Conservation 

plans, the North American Waterfowl Plan, the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, 

and the United States Shorebird Conservation Plan, into agency management plans and 

guidance documents.

Executive Order 13443: Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation (2007)

Directs federal agencies that have programs and activities that have a measurable effect on 

public land management, outdoor recreation, and wildlife management, including the 

Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, to facilitate the expansion and 

enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat.

Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981, as amended

Minimizes the extent to which federal programs contribute to the unnecessary conversion of 

farmland to nonagricultural uses. Federal programs include construction projects and the 

management of federal lands.

Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, as amended 

Governs the establishment of and procedures for committees that provide advice to the federal 

government. Advisory committees may be established only if they will serve a necessary, 

nonduplicative function. Committees must be strictly advisory unless otherwise specified and 

meetings must be open to the public.

Federal-Aid Highways Act of 1968

Establishes requirements for approval of federal highways through wildlife refuges and other 

designated areas to preserve the natural beauty of such areas. The Secretary of Transportation 

is directed to consult with the Secretary of the Interior and other federal agencies before 

approving any program or project requiring the use of land under their jurisdiction.

Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson Act) of 1950

Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance for state fish restoration 

and management plans and projects. It is financed by excise taxes paid by manufacturers of 

rods, reels, and other fishing tackle. 

Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson Act) of 1937

Taxes the purchase of ammunition and firearms and earmarks the proceeds to be distributed to 

the states for wildlife restoration. 

Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988

Established requirements for the management and protection of caves and their resources on 

federal lands, including allowing the land managing agencies to withhold the location of caves 

from the public and requiring permits for any removal or collecting activities in caves on federal 

lands.

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA) of 2004

Allows the government to charge a fee for recreational use of public lands managed by the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies. The recreation fee program is a program by which 

fees paid by visitors to certain federal recreation sites are retained by the collecting site and 

used to improve the quality of the visitor experiences at those sites. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1975, as amended
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

284

The Secretary of Agriculture was given the authority to designate plants as noxious weeds and 

to cooperate with other federal, state, and local agencies; farmers associations, and private 

individuals in measures to control, eradicate, prevent, or retard the spread of such weeds. The 

Act requires each federal land-managing agency, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to 

designate an office or person to coordinate a program to control such plants on the agency’s 

land and implement cooperative agreements with the states, including integrated management 

systems to control undesirable plants.

Federal Records Act of 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.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948, as frequently amended particularly by the 

Clean Water Act of 1977 

This Act and its amendments have as their objectives the restoration and maintenance of the 

chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters and, therefore, regulates the 

discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States. The act protects fish and wildlife, 

establishes operation permits for all major sources of water pollution, limits the discharge of 

pollutants or toxins into water, and makes it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant 

from a point source into navigable waters unless a permit is obtained under the Clean Water 

Act. Section 404 charges the U.S. Corps of Engineers with regulating discharge of dredge or fill 

materials into waters of the United States, including wetlands. The "Clean Water Act" became 

the common name with amendments in 1977.

Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, as amended

Declares the intent of Congress that recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement be given full 

consideration as purposes of federal water development projects. The Act also authorizes the 

use of federal water project funds for land acquisition in order to establish refuges for migratory 

waterfowl when recommended by the Secretary of the Interior, and authorizes the Secretary to 

provide facilities for outdoor recreation and fish and wildlife at all reservoirs under his control, 

except those within national wildlife refuges. 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as frequently amended 

Establishes a comprehensive national fish, shellfish, and wildlife resources policy with emphasis 

on the commercial fishing industry but also with a direction to administer the Act with regard to 

the inherent right of every citizen and resident to fish for pleasure, enjoyment, and betterment 

and to maintain and increase public opportunities for recreational use of fish and wildlife 

resources. The 1998 amendments to the Act modified the powers of the Secretary of the Interior 

in regard to volunteer service, community partnerships, and education programs. 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980, as amended

Requires the Service to monitor non-gamebird species, identify species of management 

concern, and implement conservation measures to preclude the need for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934

Promotes equal consideration and coordination of wildlife conservation with other water 

resource development programs by requiring consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the state fish and wildlife agencies where the “waters of a stream or other body of 

water are proposed or authorized, permitted or licensed to be impounded, diverted...or 

otherwise controlled or modified” by any agency under federal permit or license. This act also 
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

285

authorized use of surplus federal property for wildlife conservation purposes and authorized the 

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

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 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 of the Interior to accept gifts 

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

use of volunteers on Service projects and appropriations to carry out a volunteer program.

Food Security Act of 1985 (Farm Bill), as amended

Known as the Farm Bill, this act contains several provisions that contribute to wetland 

conservation. The Swampbuster provisions state that farmers who convert wetlands for the 

purpose of planting after enactment of the law are ineligible for most farm program subsidies. 

The Act also established the Wetlands Reserve Program to restore and protect wetlands 

through easements and restoration of the functions and values of wetlands on such easement 

areas.

Freedom of Information Act of 1966

Requires all federal agencies to make available to the public for inspection and copying 

administrative staff manuals and staff instructions; official, published and unpublished policy 

statements; final orders deciding case adjudication; and other documents. Special exemptions 

have been reserved for nine categories of privileged material. The Act requires the party 

seeking the information to pay reasonable search and duplication costs.

Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, as amended 

Authorizes and governs the lease of geothermal steam and related resources on public lands. 

Section 15(c) of the Act prohibits issuing geothermal leases on virtually all U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service-administered lands.

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act of 1935 

Popularly known as the Historic Sites Act, as amended in 1965, declared it a national policy to 

preserve historic sites and objects of national significance, including those located on refuges. It 

provided procedures for designation, acquisition, administration, and protection of such sites. 

Among other things, National Historic and Natural Landmarks are designated under authority of 

this Act. 

Lacey Act of 1900, as amended

Originally designed to help states protect their native game animals and to safeguard U.S. crop 

production from harmful foreign species. The Act prohibits interstate and international transport 

and commerce of fish, wildlife, or plants taken in violation of domestic or foreign laws. It 

regulates the introduction to the United States of foreign species into new locations.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965

Provides funding through receipts from the sale of surplus federal land, appropriations from oil 

and gas receipts from the outer continental shelf, and other sources for land acquisition under

several authorities. Appropriations from the fund may be used for matching grants to states for 

outdoor recreation projects and for land acquisition by various federal agencies including the 

Fish and Wildlife Service.

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

286

Establishes a Migratory Bird Conservation Commission to approve areas recommended by the 

Secretary of the Interior for acquisition with Migratory Bird Conservation Funds. Authorizes the 

Secretary of the Interior to cooperate with local authorities in wildlife conservation and to 

conduct investigations, to publish documents related to North American birds, and to maintain 

and develop refuges. The Act provides for cooperation with states in enforcement. It establishes 

procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, or gift of areas approved by the Commission for 

migratory birds. This act includes acquisition authority for purchase or rental of a partial interest 

in land or waters and requires the Secretary of the Interior to consult with the appropriate units 

of local government and with the governor of the state concerned, or the appropriate state 

agency, before recommending an area for purchase or rental. This provision was subsequently 

amended in 1983, 1984, and 1986 to require that either the governor or the state agency 

approve each proposed acquisition. The role of the Commission was expanded by the North 

American Wetland Conservation Act to include approving wetlands acquisition, restoration, and 

enhancement proposals recommended by the North American Wetlands Conservation Council.

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (Duck Stamp Act) of 1934

Known as the Duck Stamp Act, this act requires every waterfowl hunter 16 years of age or older 

to carry a stamp, and earmarks proceeds of Duck Stamps to buy or lease waterfowl habitat. A 

1958 amendment authorizes the acquisition of small wetland and pothole areas to be 

designated as “Waterfowl Production Areas,” which may be acquired without the limitations and 

requirements of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 

Implements various treaties and conventions between the United States and Canada, Japan, 

Mexico, and the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds. Except as allowed by 

special regulations, the Act makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, kill, capture, possess, buy, sell, 

purchase, barter, export, or import any migratory bird, part, nest, egg, or product. 

Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, as amended

Authorizes and governs mineral leasing on acquired public lands.

Minerals Leasing Act of 1920, as amended

Authorizes and governs leasing of public lands for development of deposits of coal, oil, gas, and 

other hydrocarbons, sulphur, phosphate, potassium, and sodium. Section 185 of this act

contains provisions relating to granting rights-of-way over federal lands for pipelines.

Mining Act of 1872, as amended

Authorizes and governs prospecting and mining for the so-called “hardrock” minerals (such as 

gold and silver) on public lands.

National and Community Service Act of 1990

Authorizes several programs to engage citizens of the United States in full and/or part-time 

projects designed to combat illiteracy and poverty, provide job skills, enhance educational skills, 

and fulfill environmental needs. Among other things, this law established the American 

Conservation and Youth Service Corps to engage young adults in approved human and natural 

resource projects, which will benefit the public or are carried out on federal or tribal lands.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended

This act and the implementing regulations developed by the Council on Environmental Quality 

(40 CFR 1500–1508) require federal agencies to integrate the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) process with other planning at the earliest possible time to provide a systematic 
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

287

interdisciplinary approach to decisionmaking; to identify and analyze the environmental effects 

of their actions; to describe appropriate alternatives to the proposed actions; and to involve the 

affected state and federal agencies, tribal governments, and public in the planning and 

decisionmaking process. This act requires the disclosure of the environmental impacts of any 

major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

Repeatedly amended, the Act provides for preservation of significant historical features 

(buildings, objects, and sites) through a grant-in-aid program to the states. It established a 

National Register of Historic Places and a program of matching grants under the existing 

National Trust for Historic Preservation (16 U.S.C. 468-468d). The Act established an Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, which was made a permanent independent agency in 1976 

(90 Stat. 1319). That Act also created the Historic Preservation Fund. Federal agencies are 

directed to take into account the effects of their actions on items or sites listed or eligible for 

listing in the National Register. Section 110 requires federal agencies to manage historic 

properties, e.g., to document historic properties prior to destruction or damage; section 101 

requires federal agencies consider Indian tribal values in historic preservation programs and 

requires each federal agency to establish a program leading to inventory of all historic 

properties on its land.

National Trails System Act of 1968

Established the National Trails System to protect the recreational, scenic, and historic values of 

some important trails. National Recreation Trails may be established by the Secretaries of the

Interior or Agriculture on land wholly or partly within their jurisdiction, with the consent of the 

involved state(s) and other land managing agencies, if any. National scenic and national historic 

trails may only be designated by an Act of Congress. Several national trails cross units of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System.

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997)

This act consolidates the authorities relating to the various categories of lands for the 

conservation of fish and wildlife administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the U.S 

Fish and Wildlife Service by designating all such areas part of a single National Wildlife Refuge 

System. Areas include wildlife refuges, areas for the protection and conservation of fish and 

wildlife threatened with extinction, wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas,

and waterfowl production areas. The law also prohibits knowingly disturbing any area within the 

system or the take of Refuge System wildlife without a permit. The Act addresses the growing 

need for recreational opportunities by providing a decision framework for allowing appropriate 

and compatible uses of the Refuge System. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial Act of 2000

Establishes a commission to promote awareness by the public to develop a long-term plan to 

meet priority needs of the National Wildlife Refuge System, require an annual report on the 

needs, and improve public use programs and facilities. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

This act, which amends the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, serves 

as the "organic act" for the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Act states first and foremost 

that the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is focused singularly on wildlife 

conservation. It establishes a unifying mission for the Refuge System, reinforces the importance 

of refuge purposes to guide management direction, articulates a process for determining 
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

288

compatible uses of refuges, identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreation uses (hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation), 

and adds a requirement for preparing comprehensive conservation plans through a public 

planning process. The Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to maintain the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement 

Act of 1998 

Amends the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to encourage the use of volunteers to help in the 

management of refuges within the National Wildlife Refuge System; facilitates partnerships 

between the Refuge System and nonfederal entities to promote public awareness of the 

resources of the Refuge System and public participation in the conservation of the resources; 

and encourages donations and other contributions.

National Wildlife Refuge Volunteer Improvement Act of 2010 

Maintains the current funding authorization level for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

volunteer and community partnerships programs that are vital to national wildlife refuges but 

makes a number of important amendments. The law amends the National Wildlife Refuge 

Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998 to direct the Service to carry 

out a National Volunteer Coordination Program within the National Wildlife Refuge System. It 

also requires the Director of the Service to publish a national strategy for the coordination and 

utilization of volunteers within the Refuge System and provide at least one regional volunteer 

coordinator for each Service region to implement the strategy. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990

Requires federal agencies and museums to inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate 

cultural items under their control or possession. This act imposes serious delays on a project 

when human remains or other cultural items are encountered in the absence of a plan.

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 2000

Establishes a matching grants program to fund projects that promote the conservation of 

neotropical migratory birds in the United States, Latin America, and the Caribbean.

North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989

Provides funding and administrative direction for implementation of the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan and the Tripartite Agreement on wetlands between the United 

States, Canada, and Mexico. North American Wetlands Conservation Council is created to 

recommend projects to be funded under the Act to the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Commission. Available funds may be expended for up to 50 percent of the United States’ share 

cost of wetlands conservation projects in Canada, Mexico, or the United States (or 100 percent 

of the cost of projects on federal lands).

Partnerships for Wildlife Act of 1992

Established a Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation Fund to receive appropriated funds and 

donations from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and other private sources to assist the 

state fish and game agencies in carrying out their responsibilities for conservation of non-game 

species. The funding formula is no more than 1/3 federal funds, at least 1/3 foundation funds, 

and at least 1/3 state funds. 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

289

Requires that any recreational use on areas of the National Wildlife Refuge System be 

"compatible" with the primary purpose(s) for which the area was acquired or established. This 

Act also requires that sufficient funding be available for the development, operation and 

maintenance of recreational uses that are not directly related to the area's primary purpose(s). 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935

Provides for payments to counties in lieu of taxes, using revenues derived from the sale of 

products from refuges. A major revision in 1964 requires all revenues received from refuge 

products be distributed to counties for public schools and roads (this stipulation later removed). 

Another revision in 1974 requires that any remaining funds be transferred to the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund for land acquisition. A 1978 amendment stated payments to counties were 

established as: 

• on acquired land, the greatest amount calculated on the basis of 75 cents per acre, 

three-fourths of one percent of the appraised value, or 25 percent of the net receipts 

produced from the land, and

• on land withdrawn from the public domain, 25 percent of net receipts and basic 

payments.

This amendment also required counties to pass payments along to other units of local 

government within the county that suffer losses in revenues due to the establishment of U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service areas.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 

Prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability under any program or activity receiving federal 

financial assistance. 

Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899, as amended

Requires the authorization by the Chief of Engineers prior to any work in, on, over, or under 

navigable waters of the United States. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act provides authority 

for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to review and comment on the effects on fish and wildlife 

activities proposed to be undertaken or permitted by the COE. Service concerns include 

contaminated sediments associated with dredge or fill projects in navigable waters.

Secretarial Order 3289 Amendment 1: Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on 

America’s Water, Land, and Other Natural and Cultural Resources (2010)

Secretarial Order 3285, issued in March of 2009, made production and transmission of

renewable energy on public lands a priority for the Department of the Interior. This Secretarial 

Order, 3289A1, issued in February of 2010 establishes a Department-wide approach for 

applying scientific tools to increase understanding of climate change and to coordinate an 

effective response to its impacts on tribes and on the land, water, ocean, fish and wildlife, and 

cultural resources that the Department manages.

Sikes Act of 1960, as amended

Provides for the cooperation by the U.S. Departments of the Interior and Defense with state 

agencies in planning, development, and maintenance of fish and wildlife resources and outdoor 

recreation facilities on military reservations throughout the United States. It requires the 

Secretary of each military department to use trained professionals to manage the wildlife and 

fishery resource under his jurisdiction and requires federal and state fish and wildlife agencies 

be given priority in management of fish and wildlife activities on military reservations.

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

290

Regulates surface mining activities and reclamation of coal-mined lands. Further regulates the 

coal industry by designating certain areas as unsuitable for coal mining operations.

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act of 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 the Interior if the land has particular value for migratory birds or to a state 

agency for other wildlife conservation purposes.

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century of 1998

Established the Refuge Roads Program, requires transportation planning that includes public 

involvement, and provides funding for approved public use roads and trails and associated 

parking lots, comfort stations, and bicycle/pedestrian facilities.

Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2000

In December 2002, Congress required federal agencies to publish their own guidelines for 

ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information that they 

disseminate to the public (44 U.S.C. 3502). The amended language is included in section 

515(a). The Office of Budget and Management directed agencies to develop their own 

guidelines to address the requirements of the law. The Department of the Interior instructed 

bureaus to prepare separate guidelines on how they would apply the Act. The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service has developed “Information Quality Guidelines” to address the law.

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 

Provides for uniform and equitable treatment of persons who sell their homes, businesses, or 

farms to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Act requires that any purchase offer be no less 

than the fair market value of the property.

Water Resources Planning Act of 1965

Established the Water Resources Council to be composed of Cabinet representatives, including 

the Secretary of the Interior. The Council reviews river basin plans with respect to agricultural, 

urban, energy, industrial, recreational, and fish and wildlife needs. The Act also established a 

grant program to assist states in participating in the development of related comprehensive 

water and land use plans.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968

Established a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and prescribes the methods and 

standards through which additional rivers may be identified and added to the system. Section 

5(d)(1) requires that in all planning by federal agencies for the use and development of water 

and related land resources, consideration be given to potential wild, scenic, and recreation 

rivers. Rivers are added to the national system based on their free-flowing character and their 

outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreation, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, 

ecological, or other values. Rivers in the system are managed to maintain and protect these 

outstandingly remarkable values for present and future generations. 

Wilderness Act of 1964

Defined the Wilderness resource and established the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

It directed the Secretary of the 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 
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

291

by Congress. The Secretary of Agriculture was directed to study and recommend suitable areas 

in the National Forest System. This act also prescribes the management of new inclusions as 

wilderness. 

Youth Conservation Corps Act of 1970

Established a permanent Youth Conservation Corps program within the Departments of the

Interior and Agriculture. Within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, YCC participants perform 

many tasks on refuges, fish hatcheries, and research stations.
Appendix F: Mailing List

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

292

Appendix F: Mailing List

The following is an initial list of government offices, private organizations, and individuals who 

will receive notice of the availability of this Comprehensive Conservation Plan. We continue to 

add to this list.

Federal Officials

U.S. Senator Carl Levin

U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow

U.S. Senator Ron Johnson

U.S. Senator Herb Kohl

U.S. Representatives from Michigan and Wisconsin

Federal Agencies

USDA/Natural Resource Conservation Service

USDA/ Forest Service, Hiawatha National Forest

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

Georgia; Denver, Colorado; Fort Snelling, Minnesota; Hadley, Massachusetts; Portland, 

Oregon; Sacramento, California; 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 Rick Snyder

Governor Scott Walker

State Agencies

Director, Michigan and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Area Managers and Biologists, Michigan and Wisconsin DNR

State Historic Preservation Officer, Michigan and Wisconsin

City/County/Local Governments

Numerous local government contacts on Horicon, Seney and Shiawassee Refuge Lists

Libraries

Numerous local libraries on Horicon, Seney and Shiawassee Refuge Lists

Organizations

The Nature Conservancy

National Audubon Society

Conservation Fund

Michigan United Conservation Clubs
Appendix F: Mailing List

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

293

Wildlife Management Institute

Ducks Unlimited

Michigan Duck Hunters Association

Great Lakes Commission

Wildlife Management Institute

PEER Refuge Keeper

The Wilderness Society, Washington, D.C.

National Wildlife Federation, Ann Arbor, Michigan

The Conservation Fund, Arlington, Virginia

Media

Local Radio and TV Stations; Refuge Media Contacts

Federally-recognized Tribes and Historical Societies

Michigan State Historic Preservation Officer

Michigan Office of the State Archeologist

The Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians

Michigan Anishinabe Cultural Protection and Repatriation Alliance (Ojibwa)

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Individuals

Individuals who participated in open houses, sent written comments, or requested to be on the 

mailing list
Appendix G: Bibliography

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

294

Appendix G: Bibliography

Barrows, W.B. 1912. Michigan Bird Life. Michigan Agricultural College Special Bulletin.

Carlquist, Sherwin. 1974. Island biology. First ed. New York: Columbia University Press.

Corin, C.W. 1976. The land vertebrates of the Huron Islands, Lake Superior. The Jack-Pine 

Warbler 54:138-147.

Crispin, Susan. 1998. The global significance of Great Lakes islands. In State of the Great 

Lakes Islands Report, edited by K. E. Vigmostad. East Lansing, MI: Department of Resource 

Development, Michigan State University.

Cuthbert, F.J. 1985. Interseasonal movement between colony sites by Caspian terns in the 

Great Lakes. Wilson Bulletin 97:502-510.

Cuthbert, F.J. 1985. Mate retention in Caspian Terns. Condor 87:74-78.

Cuthbert, F.J. 1988. Reproductive success and colony site tenacity in Caspian terns. Auk 

105:339-344.

Cuthbert, F.J., L.R. Wires and J.E. McKearnan. 2002. Potential impacts of double-crested 

cormorants on nesting great blue herons and black-crowned herons in the U.S. Great Lakes. 

International Journal of Great Lakes Research 28:145-154.

Cuthbert, F.J., J.E. McKearnan, L.R. Wires, and A. Joshi. 2003. Distribution and abundance of 

colonial waterbirds in the US Great Lakes: 1997-1999. Draft report to US Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Ft. Snelling, MN.

Cuthbert, F.J. and L.R. Wires. 2011. Long-term monitoring of colonial waterbird populations in 

the U.S. Great Lakes: improving the scientific basis for conservation and management. Final 

Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3. 

Frehlich, L.E. 2002. Forest dynamics and disturbance regimes. Cambridge Press.

Gates, F. C. 1950. Hat Island, Lake Michigan: its revegetation after bombing. Transactions of 

the Kansas Academy of Science 53:217-228.

Hatt, R.T., J. Van Tyne, L.C. Stuart, C.H. Pope, and A.B. Grobeman. 1948. Island Life: A Study 

of the Land Vertebrates of the Islands of Eastern Lake Michigan. Cranbrook Institute of Science, 

Bull. No. 27, Bloomfield Hills, MI.

MacArthur, R.H. and E.O. Wilson. 1967. The theory of island biogeography. Princeton 

University Press. 

McEachern, John, and Edward L. Towle. 1974. Ecological guidelines for island development. 

First ed, IUCN Publications New Series No. 30. Morges, Switzerland: International Union for 

Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.

Meffe, Gary K., and C. Ronald Carroll, eds. 1994. Principles of Conservation Biology. 

Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc.
Appendix G: Bibliography

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

295

Quammen, David. 1997. The song of the Dodo: Island biogeography in an age of extinctions. 

New York, New York: Simon and Shuster.

Rooney, T.P. 2001. Impacts of white-tailed deer on forest ecosystems: a North American 

perspective. Forestry 74:201-208.

Scharf, W.C. and M.L. Chamberlin. 1978. Ecological inventory of Harbor Island, Chippewa 

County, Michigan. Report to The Nature Conservancy, Midwest Regional Office.

Scharf, W.C. and Shugart, G.W. 1998. Distribution and abundance of gull, tern , and cormorant 

nesting colonies of the Great Lakes, 1989 and 1990. Publication No. 1, Gale Gleason 

Environmental Institute, Lake Superior State University, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.

Seefelt, N.E. and J.C. Gillingham. 2004. A new colony location for double-crested cormorant 

(Phalacrocorax auritus) and other waterbirds in the Beaver Archipelago, Northern Lake 

Michigan. Michigan Birds and Natural History 11:122-127.

Seefelt, N.E. and J.C. Gillingham. 2006a. A comparison of three methods to investigate the diet 

of breeding double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) in the Beaver Archipelago, 

Northern Lake Michigan. Hydrobiologia (Special Publication) 567:57-67.

Seefelt, N.E. and J.C. Gillingham. 2006b. Foraging locations of double-crested cormorants in 

the Beaver Archipelago of Northern Lake Michigan: implications for smallmouth bass declines. 

Waterbirds 29:473-480.

Seefelt, N.E. and J.C. Gillingham. 2008. Bioenergetics and prey consumption of breeding 

double-crested cormorants in the Beaver Archipelago, Northern Lake Michigan. Journal of 

Great Lakes Research 34:122-133.

Selzer, M.D. 2000. A plant community survey of Harbor Island National Wildlife Refuge, 

Chippewa County, Michigan. Senior Thesis, Lake Superior State University.

Shugart, G.W., W.C. Scharf, and F.J. Cuthbert. 1979. Status and reproductive success of the 

Caspian tern (Sterna caspia) in the U.S. Great Lakes. Colonial Waterbirds 2:146-156.

Soule, J.D. 1993. Biodiversity of Michigan’s Great Lakes islands: knowledge, threats and 

protection. Report for Land and Water Management Division, Michigan Natural Features 

Inventory, Lansing, MI.

Soule, Judith D. 1998. Biodiversity of Michigan's Great Lakes islands: Knowledge, threat, 

protection. In State of the Great Lakes islands report, edited by K. E. Vigmostad. East Lansing, 

MI: Department of Resource Development, Michigan State University.

Udall, Stewart L. 1963. The quiet crisis. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Vigmostad, Karen E. 1998. State of the Great Lakes islands. Paper read at State of the Great 

Lakes Islands Workshop, August 18-20, 1996, at Roscommon, Michigan.

Weiner, Jonathan. 1994. The beak of the finch: A story of evolution in our time. New York: 

Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.

Wilson, E. O., and F. M. Peter, eds. 1988. Biodiversity. Washington, DC: National Academy 

Press.
Appendix G: Bibliography

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

296

Wires, L.R. and F.J. Cuthbert. 2000. Trends in Caspian tern numbers and distribution in North 

America: a review. Waterbirds 23:388-404.

Wires, L.R. and F.J. Cuthbert 2006. Historical populations of the double-crested cormorant: 

implications for conservation and management in the 21st century. Waterbirds 29:9-37.
Appendix H: Glossary

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

297

Appendix H: Glossary

Adaptation: Adjustment in natural or human systems to a new or changing environment. 

Adaptation to climate change refers to adjustment in natural or human systems in response to 

actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial 

opportunities. Various types of adaptation can be distinguished, including anticipatory and 

reactive adaptation, private and public adaptation, and autonomous and planned adaptation.

Adaptive Management: The rigorous application of management, research, and monitoring to 

gain information and experience necessary to assess and modify management activities. A 

process that uses feedback from refuge research and monitoring and evaluation of 

management actions to support or modify objectives and strategies at all planning levels (FWS, 

602 FW1 1.6).

Alternatives: Different sets of objectives and strategies or means of achieving refuge purposes 

and goals, helping fulfill the National Wildlife Refuge System mission, and resolving issues 

(FWS, 602 FW1 1.6). 

Appropriate Use: A proposed or existing use on a refuge that meets at least one of the 

following four conditions (FWS, 603 FW1 1.6):

• The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the Fish and Wildlife 

Improvement Act of 1978.

• The use contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the National Wildlife Refuge 

System mission, or goals or objectives described in a refuge management plan 

approved after October 9, 1997, the date the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 was signed into law.

• The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under state regulations.

• The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in section 1.11.

Approved Acquisition Boundary: A project boundary that the Director of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service approves upon completion of the planning and environmental compliance 

process. An approved acquisition boundary only designates those lands that the Service has 

authority to acquire and/or manage through various agreements. Approval of an acquisition 

boundary does not grant the Service jurisdiction or control over lands within the boundary, and it 

does not make lands within the refuge boundary part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Lands do not become part of the Refuge System until they are purchased or are placed under 

an agreement that provides for management as part of the refuge system. 

Biological Control: The use of organisms or viruses to control weeds or other pests. 

Biological Diversity: The variety of life, including the variety of living organisms, the genetic 

differences among them, and the communities in which they occur (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6). 

Biological Integrity: Biotic composition, structure, and functioning at the genetic, organism, 

and community levels consistent with natural conditions, including the natural biological 

processes that shape genomes, organisms, and communities (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).
Appendix H: Glossary

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

298

Candidate Species: Plants and animals for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has 

sufficient information on their biological status and threats to propose them as endangered or 

threatened under the Endangered Species Act, but for which development of a proposed listing 

regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing activities.

Carbon Sequestration: The uptake and storage of carbon. Trees and plants, for example, 

absorb carbon dioxide, release the oxygen, and store the carbon. Fossil fuels were at one time 

biomass and continue to store the carbon until burned.

Climate Change: Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such 

as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). 

Climate change may result from 1) natural factors, such as changes in the sun's intensity or 

slow changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun; 2) natural processes within the climate system 

(e.g., changes in ocean circulation); 3) human activities that change the atmosphere's 

composition (e.g., through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g., deforestation, 

reforestation, urbanization, desertification, etc.).

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): The codification of the general and permanent rules 

published in the Federal Register by the departments and agencies of the Federal Government. 

It is divided into 50 titles that represent broad areas subject to federal regulation. The 50 subject 

matter titles contain one or more individual volumes, which are updated once each calendar 

year, on a staggered basis. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ): An Executive Office of the President whose 

members are appointed by the President. CEQ recommends national policies to promote the 

improvement of the quality of the environment.

Compatible Use: A proposed or existing wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of 

a national wildlife refuge that, based on sound professional judgment, will not materially interfere 

with or detract from the fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the 

purposes of the national wildlife refuge (FWS, 603 FW 2 2.6). 

Compatibility Determination (CD): A written determination signed and dated by the Refuge 

Manager and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Chief signifying that a proposed or 

existing use of a national wildlife refuge is a compatible use or is not a compatible use. The 

director of the Service makes this delegation through the Regional Director (FWS, 603 FW 2 

2.6).

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP): A document that describes the desired future 

conditions of a refuge or planning unit and provides long-range guidance and management 

direction to achieve the purposes of the refuge; helps fulfill the mission of the Refuge System; 

maintains and, where appropriate, restores the ecological integrity of each refuge and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System; helps achieve the goals of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System; and meets other mandates (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Consumptive Use: Use of a refuge resource that removes the resource from the refuge (e.g., 

killing an animal to eat, catching and keeping fish, harvesting berries or plants, or removal of 

mineral or other specimens).

Cultural Resource Inventory: A professionally conducted study designed to locate and 

evaluate evidence of cultural resources present within a defined geographic area. Inventories 
Appendix H: Glossary

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

299

may involve various levels, including background literature search, comprehensive field 

examination to identify all exposed physical manifestations of cultural resources, or sample 

inventory to project site distribution and density over a larger area. Evaluation of identified 

cultural resources to determine eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places follows the 

criteria found in 36 CFR 60.4. 

Cultural Resources: “Those parts of the physical environment—natural and built—that have 

cultural value to some kind of sociocultural group . . . [and] those non-material human social 

institutions . . . .” Cultural resources include historic sites, archeological sites and associated 

artifacts, sacred sites, traditional cultural properties, cultural items (human remains, funerary 

objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony), and buildings and structures.

Easement: A privilege or right that is held by one person or other entity in land owned by 

another. 

Ecological Integrity: The integration of biological integrity, natural biological diversity, and 

environmental health; the replication of natural conditions (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Ecosystem: A biological community together with its environment, functioning as a unit. For 

administrative purposes, 53 ecosystems covering the United States and its possessions have 

been designated. These ecosystems generally correspond with watershed boundaries, and their 

sizes and ecological complexity vary (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6). 

Effects (Impacts): Effects include:

• Direct effects, which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place.

• Indirect effects, which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed 

in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growthinducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, 

population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural 

systems, including ecosystems.

• Cumulative effects, which result from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions that, collectively, become significant over time.

Effects and impacts as used in these regulations are synonymous. Effects includes ecological 

(such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of 

affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, 

indirect, or cumulative. Effects may also include those resulting from actions that may have both 

beneficial and detrimental effects, even if on balance the agency believes that the effect will be 

beneficial (40 CFR 1508.8).

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.

Endangered Species Act (ESA): Through federal action and by encouraging the establishment 

of state programs, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 provided for the conservation of 

ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants depend. 

The Act authorizes the determination and listing of species as endangered and threatened; 
Appendix H: Glossary

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

300

prohibits unauthorized taking, possession, sale, and transport of endangered species; provides 

authority to acquire land for the conservation of listed species, using land and water 

conservation funds; authorizes establishment of cooperative agreements and grants-in-aid to 

states that establish and maintain active and adequate programs for endangered and 

threatened wildlife and plants; authorizes the assessment of civil and criminal penalties for 

violating the Act or regulations; and authorizes the payment of rewards to anyone furnishing 

information leading to arrest and conviction for any violation of the Act or any regulation issued 

thereunder. 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to insure that any action 

authorized, funded, or carried out by them is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 

listed species or modify their critical habitat. 

Environmental Action Statement (EAS): The decision document for an environmental 

assessment for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The EAS will consist of a one-page 

document indicating the proposal, the Service decision, references to supporting documents (if 

any), and a signature block. The purposes of the EAS are to establish a process for internal 

review of National Environmental Policy Act-related decision documents and to provide an 

appropriate administrative record of NEPA-related decisions at all management levels of the 

Service (FWS, 550 FW3 3.3 C).

Environmental Analysis: The process associated with preparing documents such as 

environmental assessments and environmental impact statements and the decision whether to 

prepare an environmental impact statement. It is an analysis of alternative actions and their 

predictable short-term and long-term effects, which include physical, biological, economic, and 

social factors and their interactions.

Environmental Assessment (EA): A systematic analysis to determine if proposed actions 

would result in a significant effect on the quality of the environment.

Environmental Consequences: The scientific and analytic basis for the comparison of 

alternatives. The environmental impacts of the alternatives including the proposed action, any 

adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, the 

relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of 

resources that would be involved in the proposal should it be implemented (40 CFR 1502.16). 

Environmental Health: Abiotic composition, structure, and functioning of the environment 

consistent with natural conditions, including the natural abiotic processes that shape the 

environment (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A detailed written statement, required by section 

102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act, analyzing the environmental impacts of a 

proposed action, adverse effects of the project that cannot be avoided, alternative courses of 

action, short-term uses of the environment versus the maintenance and enhancement of longterm productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources (40 CFR 

1508.11).

Environmental Justice: The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people in the 

development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income.
Appendix H: Glossary

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

301

Extirpation: The local extinction of a species that is no longer found in a locality or country but 

exists elsewhere in the world.

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI): A document prepared in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act and supported by an environmental assessment that briefly 

presents why a federal action will have no significant effects on the human environment and for 

which an Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared (40 CFR 1508.13).

Global Warming: Global warming is an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere 

near the Earth's surface and in the troposphere, which can contribute to changes in global 

climate patterns. Global warming can occur from a variety of causes, both natural and human 

induced. In common usage, "global warming" often refers to the warming that can occur as a 

result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities.

Goal: A descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future conditions that 

conveys purposes but does not define measurable units (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Greenhouse Gas (GHG): Any gas that absorbs infrared radiation in the atmosphere. 

Greenhouse gases include, but are not limited to, water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane 

(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), 

ozone (O3 ), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride 

(SF6).

Habitat: The physical and biological resources required by an organism for its survival and 

reproduction; these requirements are species-specific. Food and cover are major components 

of habitat and must extend beyond the requirements of the individual to include a sufficient area 

capable of supporting a viable population.

Incompatible: Any use (recreational or nonrecreational) of a refuge that, in the sound 

professional judgment of the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will materially 

interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

or the purposes of the refuge. Incompatible uses are not allowed to occur on Service areas.

Indicator: In effects analysis, a way for measuring effects from management alternatives on a 

particular resource or issue.

Interjurisdictional Fish: Fish that occur in waters under the jurisdiction of one or more states, 

for which there is an interstate fishery management plan or which migrates between the waters 

under the jurisdiction of two or more states bordering on the Great Lakes.

Invasive Species: Invasive species are organisms that are introduced into a non-native 

ecosystem and that cause, or are likely to cause, harm to the economy, environment, or human 

health.

Inventory: Accepted biological methods to determine the presence, relative abundance, and/or 

distribution of species (FWS, 702 FW2 2.6).

Issue: Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision—that is, a U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, a threat to the resources 
Appendix H: Glossary

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

302

of the unit, conflict in uses, public concern, or the presence of an undesirable resource condition 

(FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Major Federal Action: Includes action with effects that may be major and that are potentially 

subject to federal control and responsibility. “Major” reinforces but does not have a meaning 

independent of significantly. “Actions” include new and continuing activities. Federal actions 

include adoption of official policy, formal plans, programs, and approval of specific projects (40 

CFR 1508.18).

Memorandum of Understanding or Agreement (MOU or MOA): A legal document outlining 

the terms and details of an agreement between parties (often U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

a state natural resource agency), including each party’s requirements and responsibilities. It 

sets forth the basic principles and guidelines under which the parties will work together to 

accomplish their goals. A memorandum of understanding or agreement are generally 

recognized as binding, even if no legal claim could be based on the rights and obligations laid 

down in them. 

Migratory Birds: Birds that follow a seasonal movement from their breeding grounds to their 

wintering grounds. Waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, and songbirds are all migratory birds.

Monitoring: Accepted biological methods to determine the status and/or demographics of 

species over time (FWS, 702 FW2 2.6). 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): This act, promulgated in 1969, requires all 

federal agencies to disclose the environmental effects of their actions, incorporate 

environmental information, and use public participation in the planning and implementation of all 

actions. Federal agencies must integrate NEPA with other planning requirements and must 

prepare appropriate NEPA documents to facilitate better environmental decisionmaking (40 

CFR 1500). The law also established the Council on Environmental Quality to implement the 

law and to monitor compliance with the law.

National Wilderness Preservation System: A network of federally owned areas designated by 

Congress as wilderness and managed by one of four federal agencies: the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, or the U.S. Forest 

Service. Includes over 600 areas and more than 105 million acres. The National Wildlife 

Refuge System includes over 20 million acres of wilderness in more than 60 refuges (FWS, 610 

FW1 1.9).

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge): A designated area of land, water, or an interest in 

land or water within the National Wildlife Refuge System, but does not include Coordination 

Areas. A complete listing of all units of the Refuge System is located in the current Report of 

Lands Under Control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, 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.

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act): Sets the 

mission and administrative policy for all refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System. Clearly 

defines a unifying mission for the Refuge System; establishes the legitimacy and 
Appendix H: Glossary

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

303

appropriateness of the six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation); establishes a formal process for 

determining compatibility; establishes the responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior for 

managing and protecting the Refuge 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.

Native Species: A species, subspecies, or distinct population that occurs within its natural

range or natural zone of potential dispersal (i.e., the geographic area the species occupies 

naturally or would occupy in the absence of direct or indirect human activity or an environmental 

catastrophe). 

No-Action Alternative: In the context of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan, this refers to the 

current management direction. With this alternative, no change from the current CCP would be 

implemented.

Non-consumptive Uses: Recreational activities (e.g., hiking, photography, and wildlife 

observation) that do not involve the taking or catching of fish, wildlife, or other natural resources.

Non-native Species: A species, subspecies, or distinct population that has been introduced by 

humans (intentionally or unintentionally) outside its natural range or natural zone of potential 

dispersal.

Objective: A concise statement of what we want to achieve, how much we want to achieve, 

when and where we want to achieve it, and who is responsible for the work. Objectives derive 

from goals and provide the basis for determining strategies, monitoring refuge 

accomplishments, and evaluating the success of strategies. Objectives are to be attainable, 

time-specific, and measurable (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Ozone (O3): Ozone, the triatomic form of oxygen (O3), is a gaseous atmospheric constituent. In 

the troposphere, it is created both naturally and by photochemical reactions involving gases 

resulting from human activities (photochemical smog). In high concentrations, tropospheric 

ozone can be harmful to a wide range of living organisms. Tropospheric ozone acts as a 

greenhouse gas. In the stratosphere, ozone is created by the interaction between solar 

ultraviolet radiation and molecular oxygen (O2). Stratospheric ozone plays a decisive role in the 

stratospheric radiative balance. Depletion of stratospheric ozone, due to chemical reactions that 

may be enhanced by climate change, results in an increased ground-level flux of ultraviolet (UV) 

B radiation. 

Planning Area: The area upon which the planning effort will focus. A planning area may include 

lands outside existing planning unit boundaries currently studied for inclusion in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System and/or partnership planning efforts. It also may include watersheds or 

ecosystems outside of our jurisdiction that affect the planning unit. At a minimum, the planning 

area includes all lands within the authorized boundary of the refuge (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Planning Team: A planning team is interdisciplinary in membership and function. A team 

generally consist of a Planning Team Leader, Refuge Manager, staff biologists, a state natural 

resource agency representative, and other appropriate program specialists (e.g., social 

scientist, ecologist, recreation specialist). Other federal and Tribal natural resource agencies 

may also be asked to provide team members, as appropriate. The planning team prepares the 
Appendix H: Glossary

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

304

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and appropriate National Environmental Policy Act 

documentation (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Prescribed Burning: Controlled application of fire to the landscape that allows the fire to be 

confined to a predetermined area while producing the intensity of heat and rate of spread 

required to achieve planned management objectives.

Preferred Alternative: A proposed action in the National Environmental Policy Act document 

for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan identifying the alternative that the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service believes best achieves planning unit purposes, vision, and goals; helps fulfill the 

National Wildlife Refuge System mission; maintains and, where appropriate, restores the 

ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; addresses the significant issues and 

mandates; and is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management.

Priority Public Uses: Six uses authorized by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 to have priority and are found to be compatible with the refuge purposes. This 

includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education 

and interpretation.

Proposed Action: In the context of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan, this is the same as 

the Preferred Alternative.

Public Involvement: A process that offers affected and interested individuals and organizations 

opportunities to become informed about, and to express their opinions on, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service actions and policies. In the process, these public views are studied thoroughly and are 

thoughtfully considered in shaping decisions for refuge management.

Purposes of the Refuge: The purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, 

executive order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative 

memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit. 

For refuges that encompass congressionally designated wilderness, the purposes of the 

Wilderness Act are additional purposes of the refuge (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Record of Decision (ROD): A concise public record of a decision prepared by the federal 

agency, pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act, that contains a statement of the 

decision, identification of all alternatives considered, identification of the environmentally 

preferable alternative, a statement whether all practical means to avoid or minimize 

environmental harm from the alternative selected have been adopted (and if not, why they were 

not), and a summary of monitoring and enforcement where applicable for any mitigation (40 

CFR 1505.2). 

Resident Species: A nonmigratory species inhabiting a given locality throughout the year. 

Examples include white-tailed deer, muskrat, raccoon, mink, and fox.

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.

Shorebird: Long-legged birds, also known as waders, belonging to the order Charadriiformes 

that use shallow wetlands and mud flats for foraging and nesting. 
Appendix H: Glossary

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

305

Significant Issue: A significant issue is typically: within Service jurisdiction, suggests different 

actions or alternatives, and will influence the decision (FWS, 602 FW3 3.4 3b). 

Species: A distinctive kind of plant or animal having distinguishable characteristics, and that 

can interbreed and produce young. A category of biological classification.

Sound Professional Judgment: A finding, determination, or decision that is consistent with 

principles of sound fish and wildlife management and administration, available science and 

resources, and adherence to the requirements of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act and other applicable laws. 

Stakeholder: A person or group who has an interest in activities within the Planning Area.

Step-down Management Plan: A plan that provides specific guidance on management 

subjects (e.g., habitat, public use, fire, safety) or groups of related subjects. It describes 

strategies and implementation schedules for meeting Comprehensive Conservation Plan goals 

and objectives (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC): A structured, science-driven approach for making 

efficient, transparent decisions about where and how to expend Service resources for species, 

or groups of species, that are limited by the amount or quality of habitat. It is an adaptive 

management framework integrating planning, design, delivery, and evaluation.

Strategy: A specific action, tool or technique, or combination of actions, tools, and techniques 

used to meet unit objectives (FWS, 602 FW 1.6).

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 Endangered Species Act of 1973 and 

published in the Federal Register.

Vision Statement: A concise statement of what the planning unit should be or hope to do, 

based primarily upon the National Wildlife Refuge System mission, specific refuge purposes, 

and other mandates. The vision statement for the refuge should be tied to the mission of the

Refuge System; the purpose(s) of the refuge; the maintenance or restoration of the ecological 

integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; and other mandates (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Waterfowl: A group of birds that include ducks, geese, and swans (belonging to the order 

Anseriformes). 

Waterfowl Production Area (WPA): Prairie wetlands with associated uplands managed to 

provide nesting areas for waterfowl and owned in fee title by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

These lands are purchased from willing sellers with funds from Federal Duck Stamp sales. They 

are open to public hunting, fishing, and trapping according to state and federal regulations.

Watershed: The entire land area that collects and drains water into a river/stream or 

river/stream system.

Wetland: A wetland is land transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water 

table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For the purposes 

of this classification a wetland must have one or more of the following three attributes: 1) at 
Appendix H: Glossary

Gravel Island, Green Bay, Harbor Island, Huron, and Michigan Islands NWRs/Comprehensive Conservation Plan

306

least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes; 2) the substrate is 

predominantly undrained hydric soil; and 3) the substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water 

or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year (Cowardin et 

al., 1979).

Wetland Management District (WMD): An area covering several counties that acquires (with 

Federal Duck Stamp funds), restores, and manages prairie wetland habitat critical to waterfowl 

and other wetland birds. 

Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Use: A use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation. These are the six 

priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System as established in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act, as amended. Wildlife-dependent recreational uses, other 

than the six priority public uses, are those that depend on the presence of wildlife. These other 

uses will also be considered in the preparation of refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plans; 

however, the six priority public uses always will take precedence (FWS, 602 FW1 1.6).

Wildlife Diversity: A measure of the number of wildlife species in an area and their relative 

abundance.

Waterbirds: This general category includes all birds that inhabit lakes, marshes, streams and 

other wetlands at some point during the year. The group includes all waterfowl, such as ducks, 

geese, and swans and other birds such as loons, rails, cranes, herons, egrets, ibis, cormorants, 

pelicans, shorebirds, and passerines that nest and rely on wetland vegetation. 
Appendix I: List of Preparers and Contributors

Great Lakes Islands NWR/Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Land Protection Plan

307

Appendix I: List of Preparers and Contributors

Refuge Staff

Patti Meyers, Former Refuge Manager, Gravel Island/Green Bay National Wildlife Refuges 

(managed by Horicon NWR)

Steve Lenz, Refuge Manager

Diane Kitchen, Deputy Refuge Manager

Sadie O’Dell, Wildlife Biologist, Gravel and Green Bay NWR

Erin Railsback, Park Ranger

Mark Vaniman, Refuge Manager, Harbor Island/Huron/Michigan Islands National Wildlife 

Refuges (northern section managed by Seney NWR)

Greg Corace, Forester

Greg McClellan, Deputy Refuge Manager

Jennifer McDonough, Seasonal Park Ranger

Steve Kahl, Refuge Manager, Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuge (southern section 

managed by Shiawassee NWR)

Ed Devries, Former Deputy Refuge Manager

Regional Office Staff

Gary Muehlenhardt, Wildlife Biologist/Refuge Planner

Connie Rose, Fish and Wildlife Biologist (LPP)

Joshua Knopik, Biologist-GIS (Temporary)

Gabriel DeAlessio, Biologist-GIS

James Myster, Regional Historic Preservation Officer

Mark Hogeboom, Writer/Editor
(This page intentionally left blank)

Gravel Island NWR and Green Bay NWR

W 4279 Headquarters Road, Mayville, WI 53050

Harbor Island NWR, Huron NWR, and portions of Michigan Islands NWR (Hat, Shoe, Pismire, Gull 

Islands)

1674 Refuge Entrance Rd., Seney, MI 49883

Portions of Michigan Islands NWR (Big and Little Charity, Scarecrow, Sugar, Thunder Bay Islands)

6975 Mower Road, Saginaw, MI 48601

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/GreatLakesIslands/index.html

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov

Region 3, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov/midwest