Seney 

National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Approval 

Concur: 

1./301oq 

Date 

Nita M. Fuller 

Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System 

Seney

National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Table of Contents

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

i

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

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

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................................1

The National Wildlife Refuge System ........................................................................................................................1

Michigan’s Eastern Upper Peninsula Ecoregion .........................................................................................................3

Seney National Wildlife Refuge .................................................................................................................................5

Refuge Purposes .........................................................................................................................................................5

Refuge Vision ..............................................................................................................................................................5

Purpose and Need for Plan .........................................................................................................................................6

History of Refuge Establishment and Management ...................................................................................................6

Whitefish Point Unit ............................................................................................................................................7

 Legal Context .............................................................................................................................................................8

Chapter 2: The Planning Process ................................................................................................................................9

Internal Agency Scoping .............................................................................................................................................9

Open Houses ...............................................................................................................................................................9

Refuge Program Reviews ..........................................................................................................................................10

Summary of Issues, Concerns and Opportunities .....................................................................................................10

Preparation, Publishing, Finalization and Implementation of the CCP .....................................................................11

Public Comments on the Draft CCP ...........................................................................................................................11

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment .................................................................................................................................12

Seney National Wildlife Refuge ...............................................................................................................................12

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................12

Climate ......................................................................................................................................................................12

Climate Change Impacts ...........................................................................................................................................13

Midwest Key Issues ..........................................................................................................................................14

Reduction in Lake and River Levels ............................................................................................................14

Agricultural Shifts ......................................................................................................................................14

Changes in Semi-natural and Natural Ecosystems ....................................................................................15

Seney NWR and Climate Change .............................................................................................................................15
Contents

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

ii

Geology and Glaciation .............................................................................................................................................16

Soils ...........................................................................................................................................................................17

Surface Hydrology .....................................................................................................................................................17

Archeological and Cultural Values ............................................................................................................................22

Social and Economic Context ....................................................................................................................................22

Environmental Contaminants ....................................................................................................................................24

Past Activities Contamination ........................................................................................................................... 24

Wildlife Contamination ..................................................................................................................................... 24

Air Contamination.............................................................................................................................................. 24

Natural Resources..................................................................................................................................................... 25

Habitats .............................................................................................................................................................25

Historic Vegetation .....................................................................................................................................25

Current Habitat Conditions .......................................................................................................................................27

Wildlife ......................................................................................................................................................................31

Birds ...................................................................................................................................................................31

Mammals ...........................................................................................................................................................33

Fish .....................................................................................................................................................................33

Reptiles and Amphibians ...................................................................................................................................34

Resources of Concern ........................................................................................................................................34

Ecosystems of Concern .............................................................................................................................................34

Habitat Conservation, Restoration, and Preservation: Forests and Other Terrestrial Ecosystems ..........................34

Wetland Management ...............................................................................................................................37

Associated Plans and Initiatives ...............................................................................................................................40

Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan ........................................................................................................................40

Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ............................................................................................................40

Wildlife Species of Management Concern ...............................................................................................................40

Current Refuge Programs: Where We Are Today .....................................................................................................41

Habitat Restoration ...........................................................................................................................................41

Prescribed Fire ............................................................................................................................................41

Invasive Plants and Other Pests .................................................................................................................47

Nuisance Species Control ..........................................................................................................................49

Wildlife Monitoring and Research .............................................................................................................49

Surveys and Censuses ................................................................................................................................49

Studies and Investigations .........................................................................................................................51

Predator and Exotic Wildlife Management .......................................................................................................53

Sea Lamprey ...............................................................................................................................................53

Interagency Coordination Activities ..........................................................................................................................54

Public Recreation and Environmental Education ...............................................................................................54

Tribal Consent Decree .......................................................................................................................................54

Visitor Services .........................................................................................................................................................55
Contents

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

iii

Hunting ......................................................................................................................................................55

Fishing ........................................................................................................................................................56

Wildlife Observation ..................................................................................................................................56

Wildlife Photography ..................................................................................................................................56

Interpretation ..............................................................................................................................................56

Volunteer and Friends Contributions ..........................................................................................................57

Archaeological and Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................................57

Law Enforcement ......................................................................................................................................................58

Wilderness Area and Wilderness Review ................................................................................................................58

Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision ...........................................................................59

Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................................59

Chapter 5: Plan Implementation ................................................................................................................................74

New and Existing Projects ........................................................................................................................................74

Seney NWR Operating Needs Projects .............................................................................................................74

 Future Staffing Requirements ..................................................................................................................................76

Step-down Management Plans ................................................................................................................................76

Wilderness Review ...................................................................................................................................................76

Monitoring and Evaluation ........................................................................................................................................78

Plan Review and Revision .........................................................................................................................................78

Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact .......................................................................................................79

Appendix B: Glossary ..................................................................................................................................................83

Appendix C: Species Lists ..........................................................................................................................................87

Appendix D: Compatibility Determinations ..........................................................................................................155

Appendix E: Priority Refuge Operations and Maintenance Costs ....................................................................157

Appendix F: Compliance Requirements ................................................................................................................161

Appendix G: Research History at Seney NWR .....................................................................................................169

Appendix H: Mailing List ..........................................................................................................................................185

Appendix I: List of Preparers ...................................................................................................................................189

Appendix J: Bibliography and References Cited .................................................................................................193
Contents

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

iv

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1: Location of Seney NWR, Upper Peninsula, Michigan .....................................................................................2

Figure 2: Conservation Lands of the Eastern Upper Peninsula, Michigan .....................................................................4

Figure 3: Location of Whitefish Point Unit, Seney NWR ................................................................................................7

Figure 4: Land Ownership in the Eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan (MDNR) .......................................................12

Figure 5: Seney Sand Lake Plain ..................................................................................................................................16

Figure 6: Soils of Seney NWR .......................................................................................................................................18

Figure 7: Surface Hydrology of the Seney NWR .........................................................................................................21

Figure 8: Historic Landcover of Seney NWR ...............................................................................................................26

Figure 9: Current Landcover of Seney NWR (2007) .....................................................................................................30

Figure 10: Number of Bird Species Found at Seney NWR by Breeding Habitat ...........................................................32

Figure 11: Average Conservation Value for Bird Species Found at Seney NWR 

by Habitat Type ..............................................................................................................................................33

Figure 12: Administrative and Visitor Facilities and Natural Areas of Seney NWR .....................................................35

Figure 13: Seney NWR Forest Management Units .......................................................................................................36

Figure 14: Bird Conservation Region 12, Boreal Hardwood Transition .........................................................................41

Figure 15: Future Landcover, Seney NWR .....................................................................................................................62

Figure 16: Future Visitor Facilities on Seney NWR .......................................................................................................72

Figure 17: Current Staffing, Seney NWR ........................................................................................................................77

Table 1: Ranked Order of Acres of Soils at Seney NWR .............................................................................................19

Table 2: Average Peak Inflow of Water into Seney NWR ..........................................................................................22

Table 3: Socioeconomic Characteristics of Schoolcraft County, Michigan ................................................................23

Table 4: Recreation-related Expenditures of Visitors to Seney NWR .........................................................................23

Table 5: Ranked Order of Pre-European Settlement Cover Types of Seney NWR by 

Acres and Percent of Total .............................................................................................................................25

Table 6: Cross-classification of Disturbance by Frequency of Surface and Crown Fire for 

Common Cover Types, Seney NWR and Surrounding Area ...........................................................................27

Table 7: Acreage, Percent Total Area, and Three Dominant Forest Management 

Units (FMUs) by Cover Type at Seney NWR ..................................................................................................28

Table 8: Pool Name With Water Control Structures, Initial Flooding Date and Size at Seney NWR ........................38

Table 9: Wildlife Species of Conservation Concern at Seney NWR and Nearby Lands .............................................42

Table 10: Changes in Vegetative Cover Types, Seney NWR .......................................................................................63

Table 11: Step-down Management Plan Schedule, Seney NWR .................................................................................78
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Introduction

The wild land that today is the Seney National 

Wildlife Refuge (Seney NWR) has not always 

appeared so wild. This is a land that was once heavily logged, burned, ditched, drained, and cultivated. 

Despite repeated attempts, the soils and harsh conditions of this country would not provide a hospitable environment for sustained settlement and 

agriculture. So, nature claimed it once again. What 

was viewed as a loss by early 20th century entrepreneurs became a huge gain for the wildlife, natural 

resources, and the people of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.

Seney NWR is located in the east-central portion 

of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, halfway between 

Lake Superior and Lake Michigan (Figure 1). The 

Refuge encompasses 95,238 acres; the Seney Wilderness Area, which contains the Strangmoor Bog 

National Natural Landmark, comprises 25,150 

acres, or 26 percent of the Refuge. Located in northeastern Schoolcraft County, the Refuge is removed 

from major population centers; the three nearest 

major communities are each more than 80 miles 

away.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service

Seney NWR is administered by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service). The Service is the primary federal agency responsible for conserving, 

protecting, and enhancing the nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. It oversees the 

enforcement of federal wildlife laws, management 

and protection of migratory bird populations, restoration of nationally significant fisheries, administration of the Endangered Species Act, and the 

restoration of wildlife habitat. The Service also manages the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

The National Wildlife Refuge 

System

Refuge lands are part of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, which was founded in 1903 when 

President Theodore Roosevelt designated Pelican 

Island in Florida as a sanctuary for Brown Pelicans. 

Today, the System is a network of 550 refuges and 

wetland management districts covering more than 

150 million acres of public lands and waters. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System is the 

world’s largest collection of lands specifically managed for fish and wildlife. Overall, it provides habitat 

for more than 5,000 species of birds, mammals, fish, 

amphibians, reptiles, and insects. As a result of 

international treaties for migratory bird conservation and other legislation, such as the Migratory 

Seney NWR in winter. USFWS photo.
2

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Figure 1: Location of Seney NWR, Upper Peninsula, Michigan
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

3

Bird Conservation Act of 1929, many refuges have 

been established to protect migratory waterfowl 

and their migratory flyways. 

Refuges also play a crucial role in preserving 

endangered and threatened species. Among the 

most notable is Aransas NWR in Texas, which provides winter habitat for the highly endangered 

Whooping Crane. Likewise, the Florida Panther 

NWR protects one of the nation’s most endangered 

predators. Refuges also provide unique recreational 

and educational opportunities for people. When 

human activities are compatible with wildlife and 

habitat conservation, they are places where people 

can enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation such as 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education, and environmental interpretation. Many refuges have visitor centers, wildlife trails, automobile tours, and environmental 

education programs. Nationwide, nearly 35 million 

people visited national wildlife refuges in 2006.

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

mandates aimed at making the management of 

national wildlife refuges more cohesive. The preparation of Comprehensive Conservation Plans 

(CCPs) is one of those mandates. The legislation 

directs the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that 

the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

and purposes of the individual refuges are carried 

out. It also requires the Secretary to maintain the 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

The goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

are to:

# Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and 

plants and their habitats, including species 

that are endangered or threatened with 

becoming endangered.

# Develop and maintain a network of habitats 

for migratory birds, anadromous and interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations that is strategically distributed and 

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

ranges.

# Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, wetlands of national or international significance, and landscapes and seascapes that 

are unique, rare, declining, or underrepresented in existing protection efforts. 

# Provide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation 

and photography, and environmental education and interpretation). 

# Foster understanding and instill appreciation 

of the diversity and interconnectedness of 

fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats.

Michigan’s Eastern Upper 

Peninsula Ecoregion

The Eastern Upper Peninsula Ecoregion can be 

described as having relatively flat topography, with 

large expanses of open peatlands, forested lowland 

swamps and extensive upland forests. Today, the 

majority of the landscape is still forested, except for 

some agricultural or pastoral lands occurring on 

ground moraines and the Clay Lake Plain in the 

easternmost part of the ecoregion.

The ecoregion covers 17,114 square miles, including all of Chippewa, Mackinac, Luce, Schoolcraft, 

Delta and Alger Counties, and portions of Menominee, Dickinson and Marquette Counties. Landcover 

consists primarily of forest (67 percent), wetlands 

(20 percent), with scattered agricultural (4 percent) 

and urban (2 percent) areas. The remaining 7 percent landcover consists of open grasslands, sparsely 

vegetated areas, beaches and rock areas. The extensive forests of the region are managed as either 

national or state forest, with large areas of private 

and/or corporate forestland (Figure 2).

Ecologically significant communities within the 

ecoregion include alvar, a globally rare grassland 

plant community growing on thin soils over limestone or dolomite. Other state and globally significant communities include patterned fens, Great 

Lakes marsh, wooded dune and swale complex, 

caves of karst origin and cobble beaches. 

One of the greatest threats in this region is invasive species, which includes both the spread of 

established species and introduction of new species 

(MDNR 2005). Slightly less severe threats include 

non-consumptive recreation, land subdivision and 
4

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Figure 2: Conservation Lands of the Eastern Upper Peninsula, Michigan
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

5

development, and some forestry practices. Altered 

hydrologic regimes and altered fire regimes have 

also been identified as growing resource threats.

Seney National Wildlife 

Refuge

Seney NWR was established in 1935 by Executive Order under the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act for the protection and production of migratory 

birds and other wildlife. The Refuge encompasses 

approximately 95,238 acres; 25,150 acres comprise 

the Seney Wilderness Area in which is contained the 

Strangmoor Bog National Natural Landmark. 

While management for migratory birds is paramount, the Refuge provides habitat for a diversity of 

wildlife species, both migratory and non-migratory. 

Approximately 20 species of reptiles and amphibians, 48 species of mammals, 26 species of fish, and 

over 200 species of birds have been documented on 

the Refuge. Many of these species are Conservation 

Priorities for the Midwest Region of the Service.

Refuge Purposes

Seney NWR was established in 1935...

“... as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife: ...” Executive 

Order 7246, dated Dec. 10, 1935

“... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any 

other management purpose, for migratory 

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

“... conservation, management, and restoration 

of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and 

their habitats for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans...” 16 U.S.C. ¤ 

668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act)

Refuge Vision

The planning team considered the past vision 

statements and emerging issues and drafted the following vision statements as the desired future state 

for the Refuge:

Seney National Wildlife Refuge will continue to 

be a place of excitement and wonder where 

wildlife comes first. It will be a place where 

management decisions are made in the best 

interest of wildlife and their habitats, and people are encouraged to explore and learn about 

the natural world.

The Refuge’s rich mosaic of habitats and ecosystems will be viewed as part of the greater 

eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan ecoregion. Priority will be given to managing for 

those species, habitats, and ecosystems of 

regional concern that are best suited to Seney’s 

unique environment. Management will maintain 

Refuge-level biological diversity while preserving ecological integrity. Habitats will be managed for an array of ecological conditions, 

including the preservation of Wilderness character. When and where appropriate, an emphasis will be placed on preserving or restoring 

historic habitat conditions and ecosystem functions.

As part of a holistic approach to natural 

resource stewardship, people will be welcomed 

to use the Refuge to learn about the natural 

world. The public will be invited to participate 

in wildlife-dependent experiences that are in 

concert with the relatively undeveloped nature 

of the Refuge. Students and researchers will be 

encouraged to use the Refuge as an outdoor 

laboratory for biological and ecological research 

that focuses on understanding natural patterns 

and processes and developing habitat management techniques.

Seney NWR will continue to be a source of 

pride for the staff, those who visit, and the local 

community. It will showcase biological and ecological diversity, habitat management, and wildlife-dependent public use. It will add to the 

richness of the broader community by holding 

in trust a portion of the natural heritage of the 

eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan for the 

continuing benefit of the American people.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

6

Purpose and Need for Plan

This CCP articulates the management direction 

for Seney NWR for the next 15 years. Through the 

development of goals, objectives, and strategies, 

this CCP describes how the Refuge also contributes 

to the overall mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Several legislative mandates within the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997 have guided the development of this plan. 

These mandates include:

# Wildlife has first priority in the management 

of refuges.

# Wildlife-dependent recreation activities, 

namely hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation are priority public 

uses of refuges. We will facilitate these activities when they do not interfere with our ability to fulfill the refuge’s purpose or the 

mission of the refuge system.

# Other uses of refuges will only be allowed 

when determined appropriate and compatible with refuge purposes and mission of the 

refuge system.

This CCP will guide the management of Seney 

NWR by:

# Providing a clear statement of direction for 

the future management of the Refuge.

# Making a strong connection between Refuge 

activities and conservation activities that 

occur in the surrounding area.

# Providing Refuge neighbors, users, and the 

general public with an understanding of the 

Service’s land acquisition and management 

actions on and around the refuge.

# Ensuring that Refuge actions and programs 

are consistent with the mandates of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System.

# Ensuring that Refuge management considers federal, state, and county plans.

# Establishing long-term continuity in Refuge 

management.

# Providing a basis for the development of 

budget requests on the Refuge’s operational, 

maintenance, and capital improvement 

needs.

History of Refuge 

Establishment and 

Management

Before its establishment, the forests and soils of 

the Seney NWR area and surrounding Schoolcraft 

County were exploited to a considerable degree 

starting in the late 1800s. Early timber cutting 

favored the best stands of white pine, followed by 

“high-grading” in the red pine and hardwood-eastern hemlock stands. Slash fires fueled by logging 

debris occurred annually, with most areas burning 

time and time again. These fires burned deep into 

the rich organic soil, damaging its quality and killing 

the seeds that would have produced a new forest. On 

many areas of the Refuge, the scars from these lumbering operations remain visible to this day.

As the amount of sawtimber diminished, efforts 

were shifted to cutting of poles, posts, ties and pulp. 

At this time, an attempt was made to settle cut-over 

lands and develop farming communities. By 1912, 

drainage of the Seney Swamp was underway. A land 

development company dug many miles of drainage 

ditches throughout the Seney area. This drained 

acreage was then sold using extravagant promises 

of agricultural productivity. The new owners quickly 

learned that these promises were unfounded. The 

farms were abandoned one-by-one, and the 

exploited lands reverted to state ownership. 

Trumpeter Swans. USFWS photo.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

7

Poor drainage of peat soils, poor soil fertility, and 

the short growing season made the farming venture 

a disaster and most lands were tax-reverted to the 

State of Michigan by the early 1930s. In 1934, the 

Michigan Conservation Department recommended 

to the Federal Government that the Seney area be 

protected for wildlife. Seney NWR was then established in 1935 by Executive Order under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act for the protection and 

production of migratory birds and other wildlife.

Physical development of the Refuge land began 

soon after establishment. With the aid of the Civilian Conservation Corps, an intricate system of 

dikes, water control structures, ditches, and roads 

was built. Most of these are still in use today. 

Whitefish Point Unit

Under the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 

1996, the USFWS received 33 acres of the former 

Coast Guard Station at Whitefish Point, in Chippewa County. The remaining 11 acres were split 

between the Great Lakes Shipwreck Historical 

Society (GLSHS), which received 8.3 acres and the 

Michigan Audubon Society (MAS), which received 

2.8 acres. 

The USFWS property is administered as part of 

Seney NWR and managed as a stop-over location 

for migratory birds (Figure 3). Currently there are 

no permanent buildings or designated trails on the 

property and the USFWS does not administer any 

programs on site. However, MAS conducts migratory bird research and provides natural resource 

programs at the Whitefish Point Bird Observatory, 

which is adjacent to the Refuge’s property. Parking 

and restroom facilities are provided by the GLSHS, 

which administers the former Coast Guard buildings, including the lighthouse, and interprets the 

maritime significance of Whitefish Point.

Management of USFWS property at Whitefish 

Point is governed by the “Human Use/ Natural 

Resource Management Plan for Whitefish Point” 

(Michigan Land Use Institute 2002), which is the 

result of a 2002 U.S. District Court settlement that 

binds the Service to the provisions of the plan. This 

document provides a good historical background 

and explains the roles and responsibilities of each 

partner in managing the former Coast Guard Property. The CCP reader should refer to that plan 

(http://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/seney) for 

more detailed information. 

The primary natural features of Whitefish Point 

are the gravel beaches, sandy beach dunes and 

stunted jack pine-dominated forest. Soils consist of 

excessively drained Deer Park soil on ridges and 

side slopes, while poorly drained Kinross soil is 

found in depressions and swales. In addition to the 

abundant jack pine, other tree species include 

northern white cedar, Eastern white pine, white 

spruce, black spruce, paper birch, tag alder, and 

trembling aspen. Many of the jack pines are stunted 

at an average height of 8 to 10 feet. Some taller 

specimens of jack pine, white pine, and birch compose the overstory in the forested areas. Tag alder 

and scrub conifers, such as juniper, are associated 

with marsh areas. Dunes are dominated primarily 

by American beachgrass. 

Some of the species and plant communities that 

particularly attract attention are lady-slippers, starflower, bunchberry, and others that can be found on 

dry, sandy areas and purple bog-laurel and white 

Labrador-tea, which grow in interdunal swales.

Another important habitat on Whitefish Point 

described by the Michigan Natural Features Inventory is the “Wooded Dune and Swale Complex,” a 

“distinctive natural community composed of upland 

Figure 3: Location of Whitefish Point 

Unit, Seney NWR
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

8

and wetland features.” This complex only forms 

under the conditions that exist in the Great Lakes 

region, and thus cannot be found elsewhere. The 

varied topography of the complex itself, along with 

the unique geologic conditions that formed the 

dune-swale, supports a diversity of species.

Whitefish Point is renown for it concentrations of 

birds during migration. Each year thousands of raptors, passerines and waterbirds funnel up the point 

to cross Lake Superior. They are followed by hundreds of birders. The Whitefish Point Bird Observatory was established by the Michigan Audubon 

Society in 1997 to document and study migratory 

birds and their habitats in the Great Lakes. Every 

year they count and band birds during both the 

spring and fall migrations. Their data has led to 

Whitefish Point being recognized as a Globally 

Important Bird Area. The bird list for Whitefish 

Point includes 273 species (Appendix C). On April 

30, 2001 the USFWS finalized its designation of 

Critical Habitat for the Piping Plover. All of the 

property at Whitefish Point was included in that 

designation.

 Legal Context

In addition to the Executive Order establishing 

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

executive orders, and regulations govern administration of Seney NWR. Appendix F contains a partial list of the legal mandates that guided the 

preparation of this plan and those that pertain to 

Refuge management.
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

9

Chapter 2: The Planning Process

The Seney NWR CCP has been written with 

input and assistance from citizens, universities, 

other non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and 

staff from other federal, state, and local agencies. 

The participation of these stakeholders is vital, and 

all of their ideas have been valuable in determining 

the future direction of the Refuge. Refuge and Service planning staff are grateful to all of those who 

have contributed time, expertise, and ideas throughout the CCP process. We appreciated the enthusiasm and commitment expressed by many for the 

lands and living resources administered by Seney 

NWR.

Internal Agency Scoping

The CCP process began in March 2006 with a 

meeting between Refuge staff and regional planners 

from the Service’s office in the Twin Cities, Minnesota. The participants in this “internal scoping” 

exercise reviewed the Refuge’s Vision Statement, 

goals, existing baseline resource data, planning documents, and other pertinent information. In addition, the group identified a preliminary list of issues, 

concerns, and opportunities facing the Refuge that 

would need to be addressed in the CCP.

A list of required CCP elements (e.g., maps, photos, and GIS data layers) was also developed at this 

meeting and during subsequent e-mail and telephone communications between Refuge staff and 

the Service’s office in the Twin Cities. Concurrently, 

the group studied federal and state mandates plus 

applicable local ordinances, regulations, and plans 

for their relevance to this planning effort. Finally, 

the group agreed to a process and sequence for 

obtaining public input and a tentative schedule for 

completion of the CCP. A Public Involvement Plan 

was drafted and distributed to participants immediately after the meeting.

Open Houses

Public input was encouraged and obtained using 

several methods, including an open house, written 

comments during a public scoping period, and personal contacts.

Initial public scoping for the Seney NWR CCP 

began in August 2006 with an open house event held 

at the Refuge Visitor Center. Despite widespread 

notification in area newspapers, radio and television, 

the event drew only about 15 people. Comment 

forms were available at the event and made available at the Refuge Headquarters and Visitor Center 

during the following weeks.

Those interested in making written comments 

had until October 2006 to submit them. Comments 

could be sent by U.S. mail, e-mail, or via the Seney 

Refuge pool, Seney NWR. USFWS photo.
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

10

planning website on the Internet. Approximately 30 

comment forms and other written comments were 

submitted to the Refuge during the scoping process. 

Refuge Program Reviews

On August 28-30, 2006, a Biology Program 

Review was held to obtain detailed input on the 

issues and opportunities concerning the habitat and 

biological monitoring program at the Refuge. Thirty 

people, representing Michigan DNR, U.S. Geological Survey – Biological Resource Division, universities, NGOs, Refuge staff, conservation 

organizations, and others attended these discussions.

During July 2006, two agency Visitor Service 

Specialists met with Refuge staff to review the Visitor Service program. The review team toured the 

Refuge facilities and made a number of recommendations for improving the quality of visitor experiences, environmental education and outreach.

Both of these program reviews were scheduled to 

coincide with the CCP scoping process and to help 

formulate objectives and strategies in the plan.

Summary of Issues, Concerns 

and Opportunities

The following list of issue topics was generated 

by internal Refuge scoping, the public open house 

sessions, and program reviews. Each topic will be 

described in more detail in the following chapters of 

this plan.

Habitat Management:

# Wetland and upland habitat preservation, 

conservation, and restoration

# Invasive plant species management

# Prescribed burning and the Refuge’s Fire 

Use Program

# Stream restoration

# Wilderness management

# Role of the Refuge in the landscape

Aquatic Resources:

# Protection of waterbodies from human disturbances and invasive species

# Predator and native fish populations 

Wildlife Management:

# Wildlife research 

# Carrying capacity for Trust species

Visitor Services:

# Hunting

# Fishing

# Visitor capacity

# Outreach

# Access

# A developed picnic area

# Horseback riding and a snowmobile route 

Seney NWR. USFWS photo.
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

11

Preparation, Publishing, 

Finalization and 

Implementation of the CCP

The Seney NWR CCP was prepared by a team 

consisting of Refuge and Regional Office staff. The 

CCP was published in two phases and in accordance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). The Draft Environmental Assessment, 

published as Appendix A in the Draft CCP, presented a range of alternatives for future management and identified the preferred alternative. The 

alternative that was selected has become the basis 

of the Final CCP. This document then becomes the 

source for guiding management on the Refuge over 

the coming 15-year period. It will guide the development of more detailed step-down management plans 

for specific resource areas and it will underpin the 

annual budgeting process through competitive submissions for funding at the national level. Most 

importantly, it lays out the general approach to managing habitat, wildlife, and people at Seney NWR 

that will direct day-to-day decision-making and 

actions.

Public Comments on the Draft 

CCP

The Draft CCP/EA was released for public 

review on September 3, 2008; the comment period 

lasted 35 days and ended October 8, 2008. During 

the comment period the Refuge hosted an open 

house event to obtain comments. By the conclusion 

of the comment period we received 14 written 

responses by organizations and individuals. In 

response to these comments we made a number of 

minor edits to the final document.

All respondents who expressed an opinion 

endorsed the selection of Alternative 2 and the general approach of the proposed future management 

of the Refuge. In fact, many comments emphasized 

the shortcomings of the Alternative 3, the alternate 

“action” scenario that was not selected for implementation, in favor of the preferred alternative. We 

were able to incorporate all of the specific technical 

and grammatical changes suggested in the written 

comments. Consequently, we did not produce a formal Response to Comments Appendix for this CCP.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

12

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife 

Refuge

Introduction

Seney NWR is located in Schoolcraft County in 

Michigan’s eastern Upper Peninsula (U.P.) equidistant from Lakes Superior and Michigan. The Refuge encompasses 95,238 acres; the Seney 

Wilderness Area, where the Strangmoor Bog 

National Natural Landmark is located, covers 

25,150 acres or 26 percent of the Refuge. The Refuge is removed from major population centers; the 

three nearest major communities are each more 

than 80 miles away.

Before its establishment, the forests and soils of 

the Seney area were exploited to a considerable 

degree starting in the late 1800s. Early timber cutting favored the best stands of white pine, followed 

by “high-grading” in the red pine and northern 

hardwood stands. Slash fires fueled by logging 

debris occurred repeatedly in the region after the 

“Great Cutover”, with most areas burning time and 

time again. As the amount of sawtimber diminished, 

efforts were shifted to cutting of poles, posts, ties 

and pulp. Following this extensive logging, an 

attempt was made to settle lands on which forests 

had been degraded and develop farming communities. 

By 1912, drainage of the Seney Swamp was under 

way. However, poor drainage of peat soils, poor soil 

fertility and a short growing season made the farming venture a disaster. Many lands were taxreverted to the State of Michigan by the early 1930s. 

Seney NWR was established in 1935 by Executive Order under the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act for the protection and production of migratory 

birds and other wildlife. 

Climate

The climate of Seney NWR is considerably lacustrine-influenced by its close proximity to Lakes 

Superior and Michigan. The most common spring 

through early fall winds are from the southwest to 

northwest, and average approximately 10 m.p.h. 

Average daily humidity during spring and fall varies 

from 50 to 60 percent. Temperature extremes range 

from approximately minus 35 degrees Fahrenheit to 

98 degrees Fahrenheit. Precipitation occurs 

throughout the year, with June being the wettest 

month and March the driest on average. Average 

annual precipitation is approximately 32 inches and 

average annual snowfall is approximately 123 

inches. During spring and summer months, onshore breezes cause frequent afternoon thunderstorms. Lightning strikes are common during such 

storms. Growing season evaporation averages 25 

inches. It is expected that only during 5 percent of 

the time will drought indices (e.g., Keetch-Byram 

Drought Index) reach extreme severity levels. The 

growing season averages 119 days.

Figure 4: Land Ownership in the 

Eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan 

(MDNR)
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

13

Climate Change Impacts

The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an 

order in January 2001 requiring federal agencies 

under its direction that have land management 

responsibilities to consider potential climate change 

impacts as part of long range planning endeavors.

The increase of carbon dioxide within the Earth’s 

atmosphere has been linked to the gradual rise in 

surface temperature commonly referred to as global 

warming. In relation to comprehensive conservation 

planning for national wildlife refuges, carbon 

sequestration constitutes the primary climaterelated impact that refuges can affect in a small way. 

The U.S. Department of Energy’s “Carbon Sequestration Research and Development” defines carbon 

sequestration as “...the capture and secure storage 

of carbon that would otherwise be emitted to or 

remain in the atmosphere.” 

Vegetated land is a tremendous factor in carbon 

sequestration. Terrestrial biomes of all sorts – 

grasslands, forests, wetlands, tundra, and desert – 

are effective both in preventing carbon emission and 

acting as a biological “scrubber” of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The Department of Energy report’s 

conclusions noted that ecosystem protection is 

important to carbon sequestration and may reduce 

or prevent loss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial biosphere. 

Conserving natural habitat for wildlife is the 

heart of any long-range plan for national wildlife 

refuges. The actions proposed in this CCP would 

conserve or restore land and habitat, and would 

thus retain existing carbon sequestration on the 

Refuge. This in turn contributes positively to efforts 

to mitigate human-induced global climate change.

One Service activity in particular – prescribed 

burning – releases carbon dioxide directly to the 

atmosphere from the biomass consumed during 

combustion. However, there is actually no net loss of 

carbon, since new vegetation quickly germinates 

and sprouts to replace the burned-up biomass and 

sequesters or assimilates an approximately equal 

amount of carbon as was lost to the air (Dai et al. 

2006). Overall, there should be little or no net 

change in the amount of carbon sequestered at the 

Refuge from any of the proposed management 

alternatives.

Several impacts of climate change have been 

identified that may need to be considered and 

addressed in the future:

# Habitat available for cold water fish such as 

trout and salmon in lakes and streams could 

be reduced.

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

other trees moving in to take their place.

# Ducks and other waterfowl could lose breeding habitat due to stronger and more frequent droughts.

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

life cycles of their prey species.

# Animal and insect species historically found 

farther south may colonize new areas to the 

north as winter climatic conditions moderate.

The managers and resource specialists on the 

Refuge need to be aware of the possibility of change 

due to global warming. When feasible, documenting 

long-term vegetation, species, and hydrologic 

changes should become a part of research and monitoring programs on the Refuge. Adjustments in 

Refuge management direction may be necessary 

over the course of time to adapt to a changing climate.

The following paragraphs are excerpts from the 

2000 report, Climate Change Impacts on the United 

States: The Potential Consequences of Climate VariSeney NWR. USFWS photo.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

14

ability and Change, produced by the National 

Assessment Synthesis Team, an advisory committee 

chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee 

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

Research Act of 1990. These excerpts are from the 

section of the report focused upon the eight-state 

Midwest Region.

Observed Climate Trends: Over the 20th century, 

the northern portion of the Midwest, including the 

upper Great Lakes, has warmed by almost 4 

degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), while the 

southern portion, along the Ohio River valley, has 

cooled by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.5 degrees 

Celsius). Annual precipitation has increased, with 

many of the changes quite substantial, including as 

much as 10 to 20 percent increases over the 20th 

century. Much of the precipitation has resulted from 

an increased rise in the number of days with heavy 

and very heavy precipitation events. There have 

been moderate to very large increases in the number of days with excessive moisture in the eastern 

portion of the basin.

Scenarios of Future Climate: During the 21st 

century, models project that temperatures will 

increase throughout the Midwest, and at a greater 

rate than has been observed in the 20th century. 

Even over the northern portion of the region, where 

warming has been the largest, an accelerated warming trend is projected for the 21st century, with temperatures increasing by 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit 

(3 to 6 degrees Celsius). The average minimum temperature is likely to increase as much as 1 to 2 

degrees Fahrenheit (0.5 to 1 degrees Celsius) more 

than the maximum temperature. Precipitation is 

likely to continue its upward trend, at a slightly 

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

increases in precipitation, increases in temperature 

and other meteorological factors are likely to lead to 

a substantial increase in evaporation, causing a soil 

moisture deficit, reduction in lake and river levels, 

and more drought-like conditions in much of the 

region. In addition, increases in the proportion of 

precipitation coming from heavy and extreme precipitation are very likely. 

Midwest Key Issues

Reduction in Lake and River Levels

Water levels, supply, quality, and water-based 

transportation and recreation are all climate-sensitive issues affecting the region. Despite the projected increase in precipitation, increased 

evaporation due to higher summer air temperatures 

is likely to lead to reduced levels in the Great Lakes. 

Of 12 models used to assess this question, 11 suggest significant decreases in lake levels while one 

suggests a small increase. The total range of the 11 

models’ projections is less than a 1-foot increase to 

more than a 5-foot decrease. A 5-foot reduction 

would lead to a 20 to 40 percent reduction in outflow 

to the St. Lawrence Seaway. Lower lake levels cause 

reduced hydropower generation downstream, with 

reductions of up to 15 percent by 2050. An increase 

in demand for water across the region at the same 

time as net flows decrease is of particular concern. 

There is a possibility of increased national and international tension related to increased pressure for 

water diversions from the Lakes as demands for 

water increase. For smaller lakes and rivers, 

reduced flows are likely to cause water quality 

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

will likely lead to increased flash flooding and 

worsen agricultural and other non-point source pollution as more frequent heavy rains wash pollutants 

into rivers and lakes. Lower water levels are likely 

to make water-based transportation more difficult 

with increases in the costs of navigation of 5 to 40 

percent. Some of this increase will likely be offset as 

reduced ice cover extends the navigation season. 

Shoreline damage due to high lake levels is likely to 

decrease 40 to 80 percent due to reduced water levels. 

Adaptations: A reduction in lake and river levels 

would require adaptations such as re-engineering of 

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

international commissions focusing on Great Lakes 

water issues are likely to become even more important in the future. Improved forecasts and warnings 

of extreme precipitation events could help reduce 

some related impacts. 

Agricultural Shifts

Agriculture is of vital importance to the Midwest 

region, the nation and the world. It has exhibited a 

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

would be able to continue to adapt. With an increase 

in the length of the growing season, double cropping, the practice of planting a second crop after the 

first is harvested, is likely to become more prevalent. The CO2 fertilization effect is likely to enhance 

plant growth and contribute to generally higher 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

15

yields. The largest increases are projected to occur 

in the northern areas of the region, where crop 

yields are currently temperature limited. However, 

yields are not likely to increase in all parts of the 

region. For example, in the southern portions of 

Indiana and Illinois, corn yields are likely to decline, 

with 10-20 percent decreases projected in some locations. Consumers are likely to pay lower prices due 

to generally increased yields, while most producers 

are likely to suffer reduced profits due to declining 

prices. Increased use of pesticides and herbicides 

are very likely to be required and to present new 

challenges. 

Adaptations: Plant breeding programs can use 

skilled climate predictions to aid in breeding new 

varieties for the new growing conditions. Farmers 

can then choose varieties that are better attuned to 

the expected climate. It is likely that plant breeders 

will need to use all the tools of plant breeding, 

including genetic engineering, in adapting to climate 

change. Changing planting and harvest dates and 

planting densities, and using integrated pest management, conservation tillage, and new farm technologies are additional options. There is also the 

potential for shifting or expanding the area where 

certain crops are grown if climate conditions 

become more favorable. Weather conditions during 

the growing season are the primary factor in yearto-year differences in corn and soybean yields. 

Droughts and floods result in large yield reductions; 

severe droughts, like the drought of 1988, cause 

yield reductions of over 30 percent. Reliable seasonal forecasts are likely to help farmers adjust 

their practices from year to year to respond to such 

events.

Changes in Semi-natural and Natural Ecosystems

The Upper Midwest has a unique combination of 

soil and climate that allows for abundant coniferous 

tree growth. Higher temperatures and increased 

evaporation will likely reduce boreal forest acreage, 

and make current forestlands more susceptible to 

pests and diseases. It is likely that the southern 

transition zone of the boreal forest will be susceptible to expansion of temperate forests, which in turn 

will have to compete with other land use pressures. 

However, warmer weather (coupled with beneficial 

effects of increased CO2), are likely to lead to an 

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

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

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

be an increased likelihood of greater environmental 

stress on both deciduous and coniferous trees, making them susceptible to disease and pest infestation, 

likely resulting in increased tree mortality. 

As water temperatures in lakes increase, major 

changes in freshwater ecosystems will very likely 

occur, such as a shift from cold water fish species, 

such as trout, to warmer water species, such as bass 

and catfish. Warmer water is also likely to create an 

environment more susceptible to invasions by nonnative species. Runoff of excess nutrients (such as 

nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizer) into lakes 

and rivers is likely to increase due to the increase in 

heavy precipitation events. This, coupled with 

warmer lake temperatures, is likely to stimulate the 

growth of algae, depleting the water of oxygen to 

the detriment of other living things. Declining lake 

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

chance that some wetlands could gradually migrate, 

but in areas where their migration is limited by the 

topography, they would disappear. Changes in bird 

populations and other native wildlife have already 

been linked to increasing temperatures and more 

changes are likely in the future. Wildlife populations 

are particularly susceptible to climate extremes due 

to the effects of drought on their food sources. 

Seney NWR and Climate 

Change

Climate change is rarely discussed in most management plans because its effects are often assumed 

to occur more slowly than even the federal planning 

process. However, for many taxa, recent shifts in 

phenologic and distribution patterns have been 

strongly correlated with climate change, and for 

some species these changes have occurred over a 

relatively short time frame (Root and Schneider 

1995, Stevenson and Bryant 2000, Root et al. 2003). 

Based on a model assuming a doubling of carbon 

dioxide, Price (2000) suggests that the distribution 

patterns of 42 non-game bird species found at the 

Refuge and in Michigan in general will likely be 

influenced over an undetermined period of time by 

climate change: 33 (79 percent) will be extirpated in 

Michigan, six (14 percent) will experience range 

expansion, and three (7 percent) will show range 

contraction. For most species, the influence of climate change is thought to be correlated to changes 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

16

in habitat distribution and abundance. Ongoing 

research at the Refuge is evaluating how climate 

change may influence small mammal distribution 

and abundance patterns (Phil Myers, University of 

Michigan). Lowland coniferous forests comprised of 

black spruce, tamarack, and balsam fir are most 

likely to be affected habitat type at the Refuge since 

these boreal tree species (especially balsam fir) are 

near the southern edge of their distribution (Iverson et al. 1999). 

Geology and Glaciation

According to the regional landscape classification 

system of Albert (1995), Seney NWR lies within the 

Seney Sand Lake Plain (Sub-Subsection VIII.2.1, 

Figure 5). This unit is characterized by landforms of 

lacustrine origin with broad, poorly drained embayments containing beach ridges, swales, dunes, and 

sandbars.

The lands comprising Seney NWR present an 

area of seemingly little geological variation in comparison with more scenic areas along the shores of 

Lake Superior and Lake Michigan. Although relatively little topographic relief exists on the Refuge 

(elevation varies from approximately 803 feet in the 

northwest to 640 feet in the southeast), the broad, 

flat lands of the Refuge reflect a subtle, but highly 

complex, geologic history.

Between 10,000 and 10,500 years ago, the 

“Valders” pro-glacial lakes in the Superior basin 

drained southward across the Upper Peninsula. At 

about the latter date, the Valders ice border was 

located along the southern shore of Lake Superior 

allowing meltwater to drain southward across what 

is now the Refuge. During this period of time, the 

present land surface appears to have been sculptured. At least two phases of drainage seem to be 

visible in the surface patterns of the area. The first 

of these is a broad channel eroded into earlier outwash deposits that carried meltwaters from the area 

of Long Lake southward through what is now 

termed the “Strangmoor Bog” (Heinselman 1965). 

Throughout the length of this channel now occur linear landforms composed of sandy sediments. A second generation of outwash channels is visible as 

linear peat-filled depressions trending northwestsoutheast across Seney NWR. These landforms are 

now considered unique patterned bog topography 

Figure 5: Seney Sand Lake Plain
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

17

and are prominently visible near Creighton and in 

the Refuge lands west of the Driggs River (Seney 

Wilderness Area). Finally, the current natural 

drainage patterns present a still different orientation and one that transects the above peat-filled 

channels. In the Seney area, the Driggs River best 

exhibits this pattern.

Since 10,500 years ago, the Seney area has been a 

site for marsh development. At present, from 3 to 9 

feet of peat blanket most of the area. Among the 

more conspicuous landforms in the area are parabolic sand dunes, which have spread from northwest 

to southeast across the Refuge in a disjointed pattern. These landforms indicate arid conditions in the 

area, which allowed for the disruption of vegetation 

that had developed upon the surrounding sand and 

gravel deposits. At the same time, prevailing northwest winds winnowed the exposed fine to medium 

grained sands from the earlier outwash sediments 

and gave rise to the present dune topography.

Soils

Within the Seney Sand Lake Plain, 100 to 200 

feet of glacial drift generally cover the bedrock. The 

soils on the Refuge are generally level to somewhat 

sloping mucks, peats, and sands. The dominant 

mucks are interspersed with sand ridges and knolls 

in such an intricate pattern that the two soils have 

been mapped together as a complex of Carbondale 

muck and Rubicon sand (dune phase). The muck has 

accumulated on the wet sandy plain at a depth of 3 

to 9 feet. The material is a dark brown, spongy, feltlike muck, which is more decomposed than peat soils 

and in general contains a higher percentage of mineral matter. The natural drainage is very poor in the 

mucks and excessive in the sands on the ridges and 

knolls. This complex covers the majority of the Refuge.

A large area of Dawson and Greenwood peats 

exists in the central portion of the Refuge. These 

level, very poorly drained soils are composed of 

brown or yellow-brown mixed fibrous and woody 

material. At depth of 1 to 2 feet, raw yellow peat or 

muck underlies the peat. Very little decomposition 

has taken place in the areas of yellow peat. The 

water table is at the surface most of the year. Areas 

of Carbondale and Tawas mucks interrupt the peats 

on the Refuge. Wet sands underlie the entire area.

Along the Manistique River Valley, Driggs River, 

and the other tributaries draining the Refuge, the 

soils are predominately sands and sandy loams (see 

Figure 6). These soils are well or excessively 

drained and lie on slopes that are level to steeply 

sloping. The soil surface consists of forest litter, 

underlain by gray sandy loam or fine sandy loam, 

with coarser sand beneath the loam. Under the former Soil Conservation Service Capability Class system, most of the Refuge would be Class V, wet soils. 

The wet sandy areas are Class II, VI, and VIII, 

while the better-drained areas are Class II and III. 

Only small areas along the Manistique River and 

along the western border of the Refuge are suitable 

for farming.

Soils associated with each Forest Management 

Unit are shown in Appendix J.

According to the habitat typing system of Burger 

and Kotar (2003), a total of 31 soil types at the Refuge (61 percent) have either primary or secondary 

habitat types (Table 1 on page 19). Of these, 18 (58 

percent) have white pine as a climax species and 13 

(42 percent) have maple (sugar or red) as climax 

species (Appendix J). This system does not (at present) provide primary or secondary successional 

pathways for wetland soils. 

Surface Hydrology

Seney NWR lies within the Manistique River 

watershed, which encompasses portions of Alger, 

Delta, Luce, Mackinac, and Schoolcraft Counties. 

The watershed drains approximately 1,465 square 

miles before emptying into the northeast corner of 

Lake Michigan (Madison and Lockwood 2004). General land slopes are approximately 10 feet per mile 

and southeasterly in direction. Water enters the 

Refuge from the north-northwest through the following creeks, from west to east: Marsh Creek, 

Ducey Creek, Walsh Creek, Driggs River, Holland 

Ditch and Clarks Ditch. Water then flows to the 

south-southeast to the Manistique River (Figure 7 

on page 21 and Table 2 on page 22). The Manistique 

River then flows into Lake Michigan. 

Annual precipitation averages approximately 32 

inches per year. This precipitation accounts for 

approximately 60 percent of the Refuge water 

intake. The remaining 40 percent of the Refuge 

water supply comes from the ditches, rivers and 

creeks. Sheet flow (overland flow) is quite substan-
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

18

Figure 6: Soils of Seney NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

19

Table 1: Ranked Order of Acres of Soils at Seney NWR

Soil Name Approximate 

Acreage

Percent of 

Refuge

Primary/Secondary 

Habitat Types1

Markey Mucky Peat 43,751 46 None/None

Deford-AuGres-Rubicon Complex, Deep Water Table, 0-15% Slopes 7,392 8 None/PArV

Water 5,977 6 -

Loxley-Carbondale Complex 5,908 6 None/None

Neconish-Kinross-Wainola Complex, 0-6% Slopes 3,549 4 PVE/None

Deford Muck 3,327 3 None/None

Dawson-Greenwood-Loxley Peats 3,279 3 None/None

Markey-Deford Mucks, Drained 1,951 2 None/None

Rousseau-Neconish-Spot Complex, 0-25% Slopes 1,882 2 PVE/None

Histosols and Aquents, Ponded 1,639 2 None/None

Kinross-AuGres-Rubicon Complex, Deep Water Table, 0-15% Slopes 1,501 2 None/PArV

Carbondale-Lupton-Tawas Mucks 1,452 2 None/None

Deford-AuSable-Tawas Mucks 1,316 1 None/None

Pelkie (Occassionally Flooded)-Deford (Frequently Flooded) Complex, 

0-6% Slopes

1,302 1 None/None

Proper Fine Sand, 0-6% Slopes 1,266 1 PVE/None

Rousseau-Proper-Deford Complex, 0-25% Slopes 1,189 1 PVE/None

Meehan-Deford-Seney Complex, 0-3% Slopes 1,057 1 PArVAa/None

Finch-Spot Complex, 0-3% Slopes 888 1 PArVAa/None

Duck-Rubicon, 0-15% Slopes 827 1 PArVAa/PArV

Clemons-Deford Complex, Very Rarely Flooded, 0-15% Slopes 738 1 None/None

Rousseau Fine Sand, 15-35% Slopes 600 1 PVE/PArV

Markey-Deford Mucks, Drained 548 1 None/None

Rousseau Fine Sand, 6-15% Slopes 430 0 PVE/PArV

Graveraet Very Fine Sandy Loam, 1-6% Slopes 410 0 AFOAs/AFPo

Hendrie-Anninias Complex, 0-3% Slopes 278 0 None/None

AuGres Sand, 0-3% Slopes 247 0 PArVAa/None

Kinross Muck 237 0 None/None

Liminga Fine Sand, 15-35% Slopes 224 0 ATFD/None

Cathro and Lupton Mucks 212 0 None/None

Rubicon Sand, 15-35% Slopes 204 0 PArV/PVE

Rousseau Fine Sand, 0-6% Slopes 187 0 PVE/PArV

Noseum Fine Sandy Loam, 0-4% Slopes 181 0 ATFD/None
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

20

tial each spring as a result of winter snow and ice 

stores melting. Ground water is discharged into the 

peat and streams and flows under streambeds as 

hyporheic flow. Peak flows through the Refuge 

marsh and water system normally occur during 

spring. Snowmelt, frozen ground, and rain can combine to create destructive floods, although such 

events are rare. Stream flow data for water entering 

the Refuge is limited to early U.S. Geological Survey gauging station data for the period 1939-50 

(Table 2 on page 22). Recent stream flow data (1999 

-2000) is available for the western half of the Refuge 

from Marsh Creek east to Driggs River. Overall the 

discharges are relatively low due to the large 

amount of wetland and depression storage located in 

the watershed. 

Seney NWR includes 27 man-made pools, with 

water control capability on 21 pools. Along with 

associated potholes, beaver ponds, and ditches, the 

27 pools account for approximately 7,456 surface 

acres of impounded water, or 7.8 percent of the total 

Refuge acreage.

AuGres-Deford Complex, 0-3% Slopes 178 0 PArVAa/None

Rubicon Sand, 6-15% Slopes 133 0 PArV/PVE

Hiawatha Fine Sandy Loam, 0-6% Slopes 130 0 ATFD/None

McMillan-Greylock Complex, 1-6% Slopes 127 0 AFPo/AFOAs

Hiawatha-Rubicon Complex, 0-15% Slopes 122 0 PArVAa/PArV

Rubicon-Deford Complex, 0-35% Slopes 114 0 PArV/None

Brevort-Iosco Complex, 0-3% Slopes 110 0 None/None

Halfaday Sand, 0-6% Slopes 110 0 ATFD/None

Pelkie-Moquah-Arnheim Complex, 0-6% Slopes 95 0 AFPo/None

Duck Fine Sandy Loam, 0-4% Slopes 83 0 ATFD/None

Rubicon Sand, Deep Water Table, 0-6% Slopes 58 0 PArV/None

Paquin Sand, 0-3% Slopes 38 0 ATFD/None

Minocqua Muck 38 0 None/None

Dawson-Kinross Mucks 38 0 None/None

Spot Peat 32 0 None/None

Kalkaska Sand, 6-15% Slopes 32 0 ATFD/None

McMillan-Greylock Complex, 6-15% Slopes 10 0 AFPo/AFOAs

McMillan-Stutts Complex, 15-35% Slopes 7 0 AFPo/ATFD

Angelica Muck 4 0 None/None

Total 95,406 100 -

1. Habitat types: AFOAs = Acer saccharum – Fagus grandifolia/Osmorhiza claytoni – Arisaema atrorubens; AFPo = Acer 

saccharum - Fagus grandifolia/Polygonatum pubescens; ATFD = Acer saccharum – Tsuga canadensis – Fagus grandifolia/

Dryopteris spinulosa; PArV = Pinus strobus – Acer rubrum/Vaccinium angustifolium; PArVAa = Pinus strobus – Acer 

rubrum/Vaccinium angustifolium-Aralia nudicaulis; PVE = Pinus strobus/Vaccinium angustifolium-Epigaea repens

Table 1: Ranked Order of Acres of Soils at Seney NWR (Continued)

Soil Name Approximate 

Acreage

Percent of 

Refuge

Primary/Secondary 

Habitat Types1
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

21

Figure 7: Surface Hydrology of the Seney NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

22

Historically much of the land in and near what is 

now Seney NWR in Michigan’s eastern Upper Peninsula was an expansive, ground-water-supported 

sedge fen. In support of agricultural development, 

the largest wetland drainage project in Michigan’s 

history was begun in 1912 (Wilcox et al. 2006). The 

Walsh Ditch was constructed to redirect Walsh and 

Marsh Creeks and to lower the water tables. 

Despite this effort, agriculture proved unsustainable and was soon abandoned. The unintended consequences of the wetland drainage project were far 

reaching and will be discussed in another section of 

the document. 

Archeological and Cultural 

Values

Cultural resources are: “those parts of the physical environment (natural and built) that have cultural value to some kind of sociocultural 

group....[and] those non-material human institutions.” Schoolcraft County contains four properties 

on the National Register of Historic Places. On the 

Refuge there are 40 recorded cultural resource 

sites, three of which have been determined ineligible for the National Register. These sites include the 

several buildings in the Refuge Headquarters area, 

structures constructed by the Civilian Conservation 

Corps, logging camps, cabins, a farm, a ditch, and 

other types. No prehistoric sites have been identified on the Refuge. Five Indian tribes have an interest in Schoolcraft County and may be concerned 

about traditional cultural properties and sacred 

sites if any exist on the Refuge. During a “Master 

Planning” process in 1976, Commonwealth Associates, Inc. identified areas along the Manistique 

River as having the best potential for such sites. To 

date no resources have been found at these areas. 

Social and Economic Context

Seney NWR is located in northern Schoolcraft 

County. One of 15 counties in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, it stretches from the shores of Lake Michigan north to within 4 miles of Lake Superior. Its 

poor soils and cold climate contribute to a low 

human population and limited economic activities. 

Only 8,903 people live in the 1,178-square-mile 

county (7.5 people per square mile). The population 

decreased slightly between 2000 and 2005.

The two nearest towns, Germfask and Seney, host 

491 and 108 people, respectively. The closest towns 

with a population greater that 2,000 people are Manistique, Munising and Newberry, all of which are 40 

miles away from the Refuge. The racial makeup of 

the county is 89 percent white, 6 percent Native 

American, 2 percent African American with Asians, 

Hispanic and other races contributing 3 percent. 

Interestingly, 16 percent of Upper Peninsula residences claim Finnish ancestry, making it the largest 

concentration of Finns outside of Europe (Table 3). 

The median income for a household in Schoolcraft 

County was $32,306 in 2005, with about 12 percent of 

the population living below the poverty line. This 

compares to $46,291 and 11 percent for the State of 

Michigan in the same year. In Schoolcraft County, 

government agencies provide 23 percent of the jobs, 

followed by service industry at 22 percent, retail at 

20 percent, manufacturing at 10 percent and construction at 7 percent. Much of the area is forested 

and attracts summer recreationists who enjoy hunting, hiking, camping and fishing. In the winter, 

snowmobiling is a big attraction. (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2005). 

Seney NWR was one of the sample Refuges 

investigated in a national study of the economic benefits to local communities of national wildlife refuge 

visitation (Laughland and Caudill, 2004). This study 

found that in 2004 resident and non-resident visitors 

to Seney NWR spent about $547,300 in the Refuge 

(Table 4). When this spending had cycled through 

Table 2: Average Peak Inflow of 

Water into Seney NWR

Flowage Drainage 

Area (acres)1

Inflow (cubic 

feet/second)

Marsh Creek2 12,800 122

Walsh Ditch 7,680 156

Driggs River 44,800 512

Holland Ditch 8,320 128

Clark Ditch 5,120 98

1. Drainage area north of the Refuge.

2. Includes Ducey Creek drainage.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

23

Table 3: Socioeconomic Characteristics of Schoolcraft 

County, Michigan

Characteristic Schoolcraft 

County

Michigan

Population, 2005 estimate 8,819 10,120,860

Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005 -0.9% 1.8%

Population, 2000 8,903 9,938,444

Land area (square miles) 1,178 56,803

Persons per square mile, 2000 7.6 175

White persons, percent, 2005 (a) 90.0% 81.3%

Black persons, percent, 2005 (a) 2.0% 14.3%

American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 

2005 (a)

5.4% 0.6%

Asian persons, percent, 2005 (a) 0.5% 2.2%

Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2005 (b) 1.0% 3.8%

White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2005 89.2% 77.9%

Foreign born persons, percent, 2000 1.0% 5.3%

Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 

5+, 2000 

3.0% 8.4%

High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000 79.4% 83.4%

Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 11.3% 21.8%

Persons with a disability, age 5+, 2000 1,695 1,711,231

Households, 2000 3,606 3,785,661

Persons per household, 2000 2.36 2.56

Median household income, 2003 $32,306 $46,291

Per capita money income, 1999 $17,137 $22,168

Persons below poverty, percent, 2003 11.7% 11.0%

Source: US Census Bureau State & County QuickFacts (2005)

Table 4: Recreation-related Expenditures of 

Visitors to Seney NWR

Activity Resident Non-resident Total

($ in thousands)

Non-consumptive $29.0 $442.1 $471.1

Hunting $11.0 $48.6 $59.6

Fishing $8.0 $8.6 $16.6

Total $48.0 $499.3 $547.3

Source: Laughland and Caudill, 2004
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

24

the economy, the Refuge had generated $671,800 in 

fiscal demand, $235,000 in job income, 11 jobs, and 

$112,600 in total tax revenue.

Environmental Contaminants

A Contaminant Assessment Process (CAP) was 

conducted for Seney NWR in 2005. A CAP is an 

information gathering process and initial assessment of a national wildlife refuge in relation to environmental contaminants. 

Past Activities Contamination

During the process, soils, groundwater, and biota 

were collected from areas where past activities (oiling of roads to control dust and wood treatment of 

fence posts with pentachlorphenol) occurred. Soils 

were found to have low concentrations of dioxin-like 

contaminants. Groundwater results indicated that 

Refuge impoundments were not compromised by 

hydrocarbon contamination via shallow groundwater discharge. Overall, contamination resulting from 

previous activities is not at a level great enough in 

the soil, water or biota to cause adverse affects to 

Trust resources.

Wildlife Contamination

The Michigan Department of Community Health 

has issued a fish consumption advisory for all inland 

lakes. The advisory applies to all the pools at Seney 

NWR. The advisory provides guidelines regarding 

the size and frequency of which fish species can be 

eaten safely. The advisory states that no one should 

eat more than one meal a week of rock bass, yellow 

perch, or black crappie over 9 inches in length or 

any size largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, walleye, 

northern pike, or muskellunge. Women of childbearing age and children under age 15 should not eat 

more than one meal per month of these fish.

In 1999 a study was conducted to better assess 

the presence of mercury in fish collected from the 

Refuge. Four species (northern pike, yellow perch, 

white sucker, and pumpkinseed) were collected for 

mercury analysis (Best 1999). Results from the 

study confirmed the consumption advisory. 

The lack of fish passage prevents fish from Lake 

Michigan, which have greater poly-chlorinated 

biphenyls (PCB) concentrations than inland fish, 

from being a food source to Refuge wildlife. Mink 

and river otter on the Refuge were tested in 1995 for 

mercury and PCB contamination. Results indicated 

that mercury and PCB concentrations found in the 

livers were substantially less than concentrations 

associated with adverse effects (Dansereau et al. 

1999). Common Loons, which also feed on fish on the 

Refuge, are not currently being adversely affected 

by their exposure to mercury on a population basis 

(McCormick et al. 2006). 

Air Contamination

The National Atmospheric Deposition Program/

National Trends Network (NADP/NTN) is a nationwide network of precipitation monitoring sites. The 

purpose of the network is to collect data on the 

chemistry of precipitation for monitoring of geographical and temporal long-term trends. In 2000, 

Seney NWR became a monitoring site for the 

NADP/NTN. Precipitation is collected weekly and 

analyzed for hydrogen (acidity as pH), sulfate, 

nitrate, ammonium, chloride, calcium, magnesium, 

potassium, and sodium.

In 2003, Seney NWR also became a monitoring 

site for the Mercury Deposition Network. The 

objective of the network is to develop a national 

database of weekly concentrations of total mercury 

in precipitation and the seasonal and annual flux of 

total mercury in wet deposition. The data is being 

used to develop information on spatial and seasonal 

trends in mercury deposited to surface waters, forested watersheds, and other sensitive receptors.

In many of the national maps, Seney NWR is not 

located in an area of high deposition of many substances (pH, mercury, noxious oxides, NOx) that are 

elevated further south and east in the Great Lakes 

Basin.

Due to its remote location, Seney NWR is not 

near any point-sources of pollution. Therefore, the 

Refuge is not at risk from spills or other releases 

from facilities. Instead, the Refuge is more likely to 

be impacted from air pollution that may originate 

from other industrialized areas of the Great Lakes 

basin and beyond. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

25

Natural Resources

Habitats

Historic Vegetation

The plant species that presently dominate Seney 

NWR are primarily the result of two major events: 

(1) species migration in response to climate change 

after the retreat of the Wisconsin glacier, and (2) 

human intervention during the last two centuries 

(Zhang et al. 2000). General Land Office notes 

depict the Seney area prior to European settlement 

as consisting of a mosaic of upland and wetland 

cover types (Table 5, Comer et al. 1995). The scrubshrub matrix was interspersed by herbaceous species such as Carex and deciduous and coniferous forests of red and white pine, black spruce, balsam fir, 

American beech, eastern hemlock, sugar maple, and 

yellow birch (Figure 8). 

In the eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 

mixed-conifer forests comprised approximately 38 

percent of the pre-European landscape (Zhang et al. 

2000). The distribution of these forests across the 

landscape was regulated primarily by the interaction of topography, soil moisture, and fire. Generally 

speaking, wildfires tended to burn more erratically 

and less frequently on ice-contact landforms than on 

dry, sandy outwash plains. As a result, many areas 

of the Refuge were historically dominated by large, 

interspersed mature red pine and eastern white 

pine (Vogl 1970, Whitney 1986).

 Prior to Refuge establishment, the forests and 

soils of the Seney area and surrounding Schoolcraft 

County were exploited to a considerable degree. 

Early timber cutting favored the best stands of 

white pine, followed by “high-grading” in the red 

pine and hardwood-eastern hemlock stands (Karamanski 1989). Slash fires fueled by logging debris 

occurred repeatedly, with most areas burning on 

numerous occasions. As sawtimber diminished, 

efforts were shifted to cutting of poles, posts, ties, 

and pulp. At this time, an attempt was made to settle cut-over lands and develop farming communities. 

On excessively drained to well-drained ice-contact landforms with higher water-holding capacity

and nutrient levels than outwash barrens, mixedpine stands dominated by red pine and eastern 

white pine were common historically at Seney 

NWR, with jack pine, aspen, and other early successional hardwood species as typical associates 

(Comer et al. 1995). These mixed-conifer forests 

existed on primarily linear outwash channels and 

“pine islands” interspersed among a matrix of lowland swamp forests or patterned fens (Silbernagel 

et al. 1997). Now, it is estimated that less than 1 percent of the primary white and red pine forests exist 

in the regional landscape and much of the Refuge 

forests too have been structurally and compositionally altered due to past management actions (Frehlich and Reich 1996, Thompson et al. 2006, 

Drobyshev et al. In Press). 

Table 5: Ranked Order of 

Pre-European Settlement Cover 

Types of Seney NWR by Acres1 and 

Percent of Total

Cover Type Acres Percent 

(%) of 

Total

Muskeg-Bog 64,678 68.1

Mixed Conifer Swamp 11,699 12.3

White Pine-Red Pine 5,354 5.6

Jack Pine-Red Pine 4,462 4.7

Hemlock-White Pine 2,479 2.6

Beech-Sugar Maple-Hemlock 1,785 1.9

Spruce Fir-Cedar 1,719 1.8

Hemlock-Yellow Birch 859 0.9

Shrub Swamp-Emergent 

Marsh

661 0.7

Aspen-Birch 595 0.6

Lake or River 264 0.3

Mixed Hardwood Swamp 165 0.2

Black Ash 132 0.1

Cedar Swamp 66 0.07

Sugar Maple-Hemlock 33 0.03

Total 94,851 99.9

1. Above information derived from pre-European cover 

type layer supplied by the Michigan Department of 

Natural Resources (MDNR). This information is 

based on General Land Office Notes (see Comer et al. 

1995). Refuge boundary GIS layer does not 

correspond exactly to present-day ownership size of 

95,238.
26

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Figure 8: Historic Landcover of Seney NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

27

Wildfire History

Both biotic and abiotic natural disturbances have 

historically regulated composition and structure of 

Refuge forests and other habitats (Frehlich 2002, 

Drobyshev et al. In Press). Historically, fire 

occurred frequently in mixed pine-dominated landscapes, with relatively low-intensity surface fires 

occurring once every 5-40 years (Simard and Blank 

1982, Engstrom and Mann 1991, Loope 1991). These 

low-intensity fires usually created small gaps or left 

the basic structure of the overstory unaltered while 

maintaining a relatively open understory. Over time, 

these disturbances tended to produce a mixed-conifer stand with an uneven age structure (Bergeron et 

al. 1991, Drobyshev et al. In Press). Under certain 

conditions (e.g., low fuel moisture, low humidity, 

high temperatures, and strong winds), these fires 

sometimes intensified and resulted in a standreplacing fire. The frequency of stand-replacing 

fires ranged from 160 years for mixed-conifer 

stands dominated by jack pine, eastern white pine, 

and red pine, to 320 years for stands not dominated 

by jack pine (Zhang et al. 1999, Frehlich 2002, 

Table 6). 

Major native biotic disturbances to forests 

included jack pine budworm (Choristoneura pinus) 

and spruce budworm (C. fumiferana). The eruptive 

and cyclical nature of the disturbance brought about 

by these species likely coincided with fire as induced 

tree mortality altered fuel loading and the connectivity of fuels. 

Current Habitat Conditions

At present, the vast majority of areas that were 

forested during pre-European times in the eastern 

Upper Peninsula of Michigan are still forested. Relative to most areas in the Midwest, the eastern 

Upper Peninsula is still comprised of native cover 

types and has a high degree of ecological integrity. 

That is, relative to many other parts of the Midwest, 

the Upper Peninsula of Michigan represents a 

region where: 1) many ecological processes are 

intact and within their natural range of variation; 2) 

for most species their distribution, composition and 

relative abundance are within their natural range of 

variation; and 3) the communities found are resilient, or able to recover from severe disturbance 

events. However, only 13 percent (562,125 acres) of 

the present landscape of the eastern Upper Peninsula is now dominated by mixed-conifer stands, and 

the structure of these forests on today’s landscape is 

dramatically different than that on the pre-European landscape (Zhang et al. 2000; Drobyshev et al. 

In Press).

Based upon General Land Office (GLO) survey 

records, the mean stem density in the pre-European 

mixed-conifer forests of the eastern Upper Peninsula was significantly lower than in current mixedconifer stands. With these presently higher stem 

densities and corresponding lower stand basal 

areas, sites that were originally mixed-conifer 

stands are presently dominated by jack pine and 

thus differ from their pre-European condition in 

both composition and structure (Table 7). 

Table 6: Cross-classification of Disturbance by Frequency of Surface and 

Crown Fire for Common Cover Types, Seney NWR and Surrounding Area1

Surface Fires Crown/Severe Surface Fire

Frequent 

(25-100 yr)

Infrequent 

(100-500 yr)

Rare 

(500-1,000 yr)

Very Rare 

(>1,000 yr)

Very Frequent 

(<25 yr)

Jack Pine Barrens/

Aspen Parklands

__ __ __

Frequent

(25-100 yr)

__ Red-White Oak/RedWhite Pine__ __

Infrequent

(>100 yr)

Jack Pine-Black 

Spruce/Spruce-FirBirch

Black Spruce Peatlands __ Sugar Maple-American BasswooodSugar Maple-Eastern Hemlock

1. Adapted from Frehlich 2002
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

28

Table 7: Acreage, Percent Total Area, and Three Dominant Forest 

Management Units (FMUs) by Cover Type at Seney NWR1

Cover Type (Code Description) Acres Percent

Total 

Area

Ranked Order Top Three 

FMUs (Acres)

Percent in 

Top Three 

FMUs

Scrub/Shrub (Lowland) 26,354 27 20 (7720), 4 (2527), 10 (1932) 46

Sedge/Bluejoint Grass 9,385 10 20 (1549), 13 (1301), 14 (1021) 41

Forested Broadleaf/Coniferous Mix (Lowland)5,915 6 20 (2799), 3 (434), 8 (284) 59

Aspen/Pine 5,855 6 20 (1977), 1 (501), 12 (440) 50

Sphagnum/Leatherleaf 4,162 4 20 (3453), 12 (446), 10 (209) 99

Water 3,928 4 7 (1275), 9 (451), 8 (398) 54

Forested Coniferous Mix (Upland) 3,238 3 17 (476), 20 (394), 9 (258) 35

Tamarack/Spruce 3,156 3 20 (718), 13 (551), 16 (283) 49

Forested Broadleaf/Coniferous Mix 

(Upland)

3,110 3 20 (844), 17 (428), 9 (297) 51

Mixed Emergents/Grasses/Forbs 2,884 3 11 (480), 7 (344), 13 (322) 40

Forested Coniferous Mix (Lowland) 2,399 2 4 (430), 20 (337), 9 (271) 43

Aspen/Birch/Fir/Spruce (Lowland) 2,305 2 20 (709), 12 (330), 16 (199) 54

Red Pine/Jack Pine 2,098 2 14 (265), 15 (199), 9 (182) 31

Northern Hardwoods/White Pine/Hemlock1,891 2 20 (803), 18 (261), 17 (221) 68

Aspen (Upland) 1,891 2 20 (859), 12 (383), 17 (144) 73

Aspen (Lowland) 1,681 2 20 (796), 12 (287), 1 (162) 74

Tag Alder 1,634 2 20 (416), 12 (308), 11 (196) 56

Northern Hardwoods (Maple/Beech/Yellow Birch)1,576 2 20 (534), 17 (460), 18 (263) 80

Black Spruce 1,133 1 19 (147), 16 (143), 13 (133) 37

Jack Pine 1,066 1 15 (182), 16 (162), 17 (127) 44

Red Pine/White Pine 935 1 4 (199), 8 (110), 20 (103) 44

Forested Broadleaf Mix (Upland) 905 1 20 (597), 18 (139), 1 (52) 87

Grass/Ferns 900 1 20 (329), 1 (124), 3 (88) 60

Tamarack 821 1 20 (326), 12 (120), 13 (108) 67

Forested Broadleaf Mix (Lowland) 810 1 1 (271), 20 (266), 2 (125) 82

Red Pine 726 1 1 (203), 20 (115), 18 (83) 55

Willow 711 1 20 (301), 11 (89), 12 (64) 64
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

29

For the purpose of this plan, we combined the 

resulting 41 vegetative cover types (not including 

“Developed” and “No Photo Coverage”) into 10 habitat types. In ranked order by acreage, these 10 habitat types (Figure 9) are:

# Scrub-Shrub (28,954 acres)

# Open Wetlands (16,617 acres)

# Mixed Forest-Uplands (11,396 acres)

# Coniferous Forest-Uplands (8,857 acres)

# Mixed Forest-Lowlands (8,221 acres)

# Coniferous Forest-Lowlands (7,825 acres)

# Open Water (5,103 acres)

# Deciduous Forest-Uplands (4,372 acres)

# Deciduous Forest-Lowlands (2,515 acres)

# Upland Old Fields and Openland (1,302 

acres)

Scrub-Shrub Habitat Type (28,954 acres): This 

habitat type includes scrub-shrub lowland, tag 

alder, willow, and scrub shrub upland cover types. 

This habitat type dominates the Refuge. Common 

species (and species groups) include alder, red osier 

dogwood, willow, meadowsweet, current, bedstraw, 

joe-pye-weed, goldenrod, and marsh fern.

Open Wetland Habitat Type (16,617 acres): This 

habitat type includes sedge-bluejoint grass, mixed 

emergents-grasses-forbs, cattail, and sphagnumleatherleaf cover types. This habitat type contains 

many different herbaceous species, with composition related to moisture, exposure, and soil conditions. 

Submergent Vegetation 691 1 19 (175), 8 (145), 9 (130) 65

Aspen/Birch/Fir/Spruce (Upland) 540 1 20 (89), 16 (83), 15 (73) 45

Spruce/Fir 509 1 15 (124), 19 (103), 17 (77) 60

Cattail 493 1 5 (165), 13 (102), 6 (59) 66

Hayfields 402 <1 18 (120), 3 (117), 17 (102) 84

Developed 308 <1 20 (110), 6 (45), 1 (32) 61

Scrub/Shrub (Upland) 255 <1 20 (98), 3 (46), 1 (26) 67

Northern White Cedar (Lowland) 189 <1 18 (108), 1 (32), 10 (31) 90

Rooted-Floating Vegetation 179 <1 6 (67), 7 (51), 9 (19) 77

Hemlock (Upland) 170 <1 20 (119), 1 (35), 15 (9) 96

Hemlock (Lowland) 127 <1 3 (37), 17 (24), 8 (15) 60

White Pine 104 <1 13 (22), 20 (21), 8 (14) 55

Hardwoods (Lowland) 25 <1 20 (7), 18 (6), 9 (4) 71

No Photo Coverage 24 <1 19 (21), 20 (3) 100

Northern White Cedar (Upland) 12 <1 9 (10), 16 (2) 100

1. Cover types are shown in ranked order and are based on U. S. Geological Survey-interpreted 2004 aerial photos.

Table 7: Acreage, Percent Total Area, and Three Dominant Forest 

Management Units (FMUs) by Cover Type at Seney NWR1

Cover Type (Code Description) Acres Percent

Total 

Area

Ranked Order Top Three 

FMUs (Acres)

Percent in 

Top Three 

FMUs
30

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Figure 9: Current Landcover of Seney NWR (2007)
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

31

Mixed Forest-Upland Habitat Type (11,396 

acres): This habitat type contains aspen-pine, 

upland forested broadleaf-coniferous mix, northern 

hardwood-white pine, eastern-hemlock, and aspenbirch-fir-spruce upland cover types. Common overstory species include white pine, red pine, and jack 

pine, and deciduous species such as red maple, 

quaking and large-toothed aspen. Understory species include wild raisin, bracken fern, hazels, wild 

strawberry, princess pine, blueberry, and huckleberry.

Coniferous Forest-Upland Habitat Type (8,857 

acres): This habitat type includes upland forested 

coniferous mix, red pine-jack pine, jack pine, red 

pine-white pine, red pine, upland spruce-fir; hemlock, white pine, and upland northern white cedar 

cover types. Understory species include wild raisin, 

bracken fern, hazels, wild strawberry, princess pine, 

blueberry, and huckleberry. Lichens, grasses and 

sedges are also represented, especially in the second growth aspen stands.

Mixed Forest-Lowlands Habitat Type (8,221 

acres): includes forested broadleaf-coniferous mix, 

lowland and aspen-birch-fir-spruce, and other lowland cover types. Overstory species include coniferous species such as black spruce, balsam fir, and 

tamarack, as well as deciduous species such as black 

ash, quaking aspen, and red maple.

Coniferous Forest-Lowland Habitat Type (7,825 

acres): Habitat includes tamarack-spruce, forested 

coniferous mix lowland; black spruce; tamarack; 

northern white cedar, lowland; and hemlock lowland 

cover types. This habitat type represents a combination of two basic forests types: the spruce-fir or 

boreal forest, and the northern lowland or swamp 

conifer forest. White spruce and balsam fir comprise 

the majority of tree species in the first forest type 

(with some eastern hemlock), while white cedar, 

black spruce and tamarack constitute the majority 

in the second forest type. Typical associates, in this 

habitat type, include paper birch, red maple, and 

alder. Common shrubs include round-leafed dogwood, hazel, honeysuckle, thimbleberry, and blueberries. Other understory plants include sweet gale, 

leatherleaf, bog rosemary, and cranberry. However, 

when the canopy is closed little understory exists. 

Open Water Habitat Type (5,103 acres): Habitat 

includes water; rooted-floating vegetation; and submergent vegetation cover types. Open water consists of anthropogenic pools and natural stream 

channels. The pools were created by using dikes and 

channels to impound water on what was once scrubshrub and lowland coniferous forest.

Deciduous Forest-Upland Habitat Type (4,372 

acres): Habitat includes aspen upland, northern 

hardwoods (maple-beech-yellow birch), forested 

broadleaf mix, and other upland cover types. This 

habitat type is commonly referred to as the broadleaf forest, northern mesic, northern hardwood, or 

hardwood-hemlock forest, and is comprised of sugar 

maple, American beech, and yellow birch, with eastern hemlock as an important associate. Other associates include American basswood, black cherry, 

paper birch, white spruce, white ash, and balsam fir. 

When the tree canopy closes in, the herbaceous 

plants disappear. However, in suitable areas, several 

shrubs (e.g., Canada yew, elderberry, leatherwood, 

and hazel) and other plants (e.g., partridge berry, 

bunchberry, twinflower, baneberry, trillium) can 

occur. This forest type is scattered through the Refuge, usually on the most nutrient rich soils.

Deciduous Forest-Lowland Habitat Type (2,515 

acres): Habitat includes aspen lowland, forested 

broadleaf mix lowland, and hardwoods lowland 

cover types. This habitat type is comprised of red 

maple, black and white ash, and American basswood 

and is scattered through the Refuge, usually next to 

riparian corridors.

Upland Old Fields and Openland Habitat Type

(1,302 acres): This habitat type includes grass-ferns 

and hayfields cover types. This habitat type consists 

of primarily anthropogenic habitats created prior to 

the Refuge establishment in 1935. Many non-native 

grass species, such as Kentucky bluegrass and several brome species, characterize these areas. 

Wildlife

Birds

Relative to pre-European times, it is likely that 

Seney NWR is presently richer in bird species due 

to anthropogenic habitats such as Refuge pools and 

upland old fields and openland. A total of 231 bird 

species comprise the Refuge’s species list of 

migrants and residents, including breeding and 

stopover species (Appendix C). It comes as no surprise then that Seney NWR is an Important Bird 

Area (American Bird Conservancy) and has 46 

USFWS R3 Priority Species, 23 of which utilize primarily terrestrial habitats. The Refuge also has 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

32

many species that are listed on United States Forest 

Service and Michigan Department of Natural 

Resources conservation lists (Table 9 on page 42). 

Species of high public interest include Common 

Loon, Bald Eagle, Osprey, Yellow Rail, Sandhill 

Crane, Trumpeter Swan, Sharp-tailed and Spruce 

Grouse, Black-backed Woodpecker, Connecticut 

Warbler, Le Conte’s Sparrow, and game species 

such as American Woodcock and Ruffed Grouse. 

To better assess the Refuge’s bird community 

and help prioritize habitat preservation, conservation, and restoration, Brosnan and Corace (2006) 

compiled a bird assessment for the Refuge that 

linked the Refuge’s bird species list with (1) preferred breeding habitat types (Brewer et al. 1991) 

classified per the Refuge’s USGS cover type map; 

(2) nest locations (Ehrlich et al. 1988); (3) global 

breeding population percentages estimates for 

Michigan (Rich et al. 2004); (4) Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) regional and national population trends 

(Sauer et al. 2005); and (5) Partners in Flight (PIF) 

Midwest conservation priority scores (PIF 2006). 

Results indicated that most bird species at Seney 

NWR are associated with forested habitats. Sixty 

bird species of Seney NWR breed in wet coniferous 

forests alone (Figure 10). A significant number of 

birds also utilize open water and open wetlands for 

breeding habitat. On a finer spatial scale, there were 

13 primary nest location types used by the bird species found on the Refuge. An estimated 40 percent 

of the Refuge bird species are ground-nesters, with 

tree, snag, and shrub structures also yielding a 

higher than average number of species. 

A total of 135 species had percent global population scores, and 192 species had information on 

national population trend data from the BBS survey. 

A total of 171 bird species had information on 

regional population trend data within the Boreal 

Hardwood Transition zone. There were PIF Midwest priority scores for 151 of the bird species. A 

summary of these scores is shown in Figure 11. 

Because of the spatial habitat heterogeneity at 

Seney NWR, the Refuge should continue to have a 

high degree of bird diversity, while providing for 

many species of conservation concern in most existing habitat types. In particular, because Seney 

NWR has more area in forest habitat types relative 

to other refuges in the Midwest (and even Lower 48 

states), the Refuge has the opportunity to be a 

leader in forest habitat management for bird conservation. 

Figure 10: Number of Bird Species Found at Seney NWR by Breeding Habitat1

1. According to Brewer et al. (1991)
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

33

Mammals

There are approximately 50 extant mammal species at the Refuge, with other species (e.g., fox 

squirrel and opossum) likely to colonize the area in 

future years due to range expansion in light of climate change (Appendix C). Some of the mammals 

found at the Refuge are listed as USFWS Region 3 

Priority Species (e.g., gray wolf), and many other 

species are listed on United States Forest Service 

and Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

conservation lists (Table 9 on page 42). Species of 

high public interest include gray wolf, fisher, American marten, river otter, beaver, snowshoe hare, and 

white-tailed deer. Seney NWR’s mammal community composition is likely similar to what it was during pre-European times, and thus the predator-prey 

systems are likely not significantly altered at the 

Refuge. For instance, the predator-prey relationship that now exists between the small number of 

gray wolves on the Refuge and the white-tailed deer 

and beaver they prey upon seems to be in concert, 

with neither the predator nor the prey species causing considerable ecological concern. Moreover, as a 

site for the release of individuals, the Refuge has 

played an integral part, for instance, in the regional 

restoration of populations of species such as fisher 

and American marten. 

Fish

Seventeen species of fish have been known to 

occur in the pools on the Refuge. If the Manistique 

River, the southern boundary of the Refuge, is 

included the possible total number of fish species 

present increases to 43. Northern pike, yellow 

perch, black crappie, brown bullhead, and bluegill 

are five species of popular game fish in the pool system. Species of fish that are in the rivers and 

streams within the boundaries of the Refuge include 

the previous mentioned and walleye, smallmouth 

Figure 11: Average Conservation Value for Bird Species Found at Seney NWR 

by Habitat Type
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

34

bass, brook trout, and brown trout. The brook trout 

is listed as a Region 3 Conservation Priority Species.

Seney NWR’s fish community composition is 

likely very different to what it was during pre-European times, primarily due to the large number of 

non-native salmonids and other species such as sea 

lamprey. Therefore, unlike the mammal community, 

the fish predator-prey systems are likely significantly altered at the Refuge. 

Reptiles and Amphibians

The herptofauna community at Seney NWR consists of approximately 22 extant species (Appendix 

C). Although none of these species are listed as 

USFWS Region 3 Conservation Priority Species, 

some are listed on United States Forest Service and 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources conservation lists (Table 9 on page 42). Of special interest 

in Michigan, for instance, is the Refuge’s mink frog 

population. This species is at its southern range 

periphery in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and is 

not widely distributed in the region.

Resources of Concern

Resources of Concern were identified by literature review and expert opinion. Refuge resources of 

concern include special areas, habitats, ecosystems, 

and individual species. Lists of vertebrates occurring on the Refuge and surrounding area and their 

conservation status according to FWS Region 3, the 

USFS Regional Forester, and the State of Michigan 

are shown in Table 9 on page 42.

Ecosystems of Concern

Ecosystems of greatest conservation concern at 

Seney NWR include patterned fens, rivers, oldgrowth-virgin deciduous forests, and mature-old 

growth red and white pine forests (Noss and Scott 

1997). A number of specific parcels of land have 

been set-aside or removed from active management, 

including the Seney Wilderness Area (1970), the 

Strangmoor Bog National Natural Landmark (designation date 1973), and a number of Research Natural Areas and Public Use Natural Areas 

(Figure 12). The five Research Natural Areas are 

Strangmoor Bog (640 acres), SAF 15 Red Pine (100 

acres), SAF 23 Hemlock (50 acres), and SAF 25 

Sugar Maple-Beech-Yellow Birch (350 acres). The 

two Public Use Natural Areas are White Pine (30 

acres) and Northern Hardwoods (68 acres). 

Habitat Conservation, 

Restoration, and Preservation: 

Forests and Other Terrestrial 

Ecosystems

Seney NWR contains 20 Forest Management 

Units (FMUs, Figure 13 on page 36). These longstanding FMUs were devised based upon existing 

and potential vegetation features, location to access 

sites, size and shape, as well as management mandates that dictate management strategies to a considerable degree, including Wilderness Area and 

the designation of other natural areas. Other criteria, such as proximity to human development, were 

deemed not significant enough to further delineate 

FMUs. 

Forests of Seney NWR have seen dramatic alterations due to exploitation (Verme 1996, Losey 2003), 

utilitarianism, and “edge management” (Leopold 

1933). Now, the proposed philosophy for management of these ecosystems stems from a perspective 

of landscape (Forman 1995) and disturbance (Frehlich 2002) ecology within a conservation biology 

context (Hunter 1990, Askins 2000). 

Black bear. USFWS photo.
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

35

Figure 12: Administrative and Visitor Facilities and Natural Areas of Seney N
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

36

Prior to Refuge establishment, forests that contained valuable timber and were accessible either by 

road or stream were degraded and altered from 

their pre-European settlement conditions by logging and, in xeric, conifer-dominated areas, resulting wildfires fueled by logging debris (Karamanski 

1989, Comer et al. 1995, Verme 1996, Drobyshev et 

al., In Press). The degree to which these forests 

were altered from their pre-European settlement 

condition is thought to be positively correlated to 

their proximity to roads and/or streams (Corace et 

al., Ongoing Refuge Research).

After Refuge establishment in 1935, forest management objectives were primarily concerned with 

managing for early successional habitats, such as 

aspen and jack pine. Consequently, in many (but not 

all) forest patches, compositional and structural patterns that now exist are considerably different relative to pre-European benchmark conditions. For 

instance, in many sites that once grew long-lived, 

later seral stage, red and white pine, past management activities have shifted stand dominance to 

shorter-lived, earlier seral stage, jack pine with a 

concomitant loss of structural diversity. Similarly, in 

northern hardwood stands, salvage logging for utilitarian objectives during the 1970s and the recent 

arrival of Beech Bark Disease have together 

decreased the ecological integrity of many of these 

forests as well, with adverse impacts to many wildlife species (especially neotropical migrant birds) of 

national, regional, or local concern. 

The goal of forest management at the Refuge is 

to conserve the diversity of cover types and seral 

stages at the landscape scale, while providing ecosystems, habitats, or seral stages important for species of national, regional, state, or local conservation 

concern. At the patch scale, management focuses on 

conserving and restoring historic compositional and 

structural patterns to forests that were degraded by 

past human activities. In doing so, the Refuge provides a model for the Forest Bird Conservation Area 

(FBCA) concept posed by Matteson et al. (In 

Review).

Forest management at the Refuge should be ecologically-based (Seymour and Hunter 1999), should 

de-emphasize single-species management (Simberloff 1997), maintain Refuge biodiversity, and strive 

to conserve and restore nationally, regionally, or 

locally imperiled ecosystems and habitat types (Holling and Meffe 1996, Lambeck 1997). Management 

should also increase mean patch size (Crozier and 

Niemi 2003) across the Refuge, and increase connectivity between similar forests or habitat types. 

Forest management should also focus on the spatial 

arrangement of existing forests or habitat types and 

conserve and restore forest stand structure and 

composition where and when possible (Askins 2000). 

For instance, early successional forests (e.g., aspen, 

jack pine) that now exist on the Refuge boundary 

(e.g., Forest Management Units 1 to 6) should be 

conserved so as to produce larger overall patches by 

linking with similar cover types managed by the primary surrounding land owner, the State of Michigan.

Elsewhere, however, management should be 

directed at moving succession primarily “forward” 

and provide near benchmark conditions for later 

successional red and white pine and northern hardwood forests as near-benchmark examples of these 

forests are especially imperiled nationally, regionally, and locally (Noss and Scott 1997). Thus, forest 

management should provide a gradient from earlier 

successional forest cover types (e.g., aspen and jack 

pine) at the northern periphery of the Refuge to 

later successional ecosystems and seral stages 

within the interior and at the southern portion of the 

Refuge while maintaining existing stands of late 

successional forests wherever they are found.

The patch-scale focus of forest management 

should promote ecological integrity by restoring 

composition, structure, and processes in altered 

stands and maintaining these characteristics in relatively unaltered stands. In late successional forests 

Figure 13: Seney NWR Forest 

Management Units
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

37

comprised of red and white pine, eastern hemlock, 

and northern hardwood-associated tree species, an 

increased focus should be placed on providing 

coarse woody debris and standing snags. According 

to a literature review by Sallabanks and Arnett 

(2005), of all the characteristics of forest ecosystems 

that can be altered by management, the size, diversity, and abundance of snags may be the most 

important factor affecting bird diversity and abundance at the stand scale. Research conducted at the 

Refuge also indicated that stands with more compositional and structural diversity (including increased 

coarse woody debris and snags) have more diverse 

small mammal communities, an important component of ecologically integrity in northern forest ecosystems (Harrington 2006).

Refuge forest patches with pre-European settlement forest conditions contain many large-diameter 

snags (Drobyshev et al. In Press). However, most 

forest patches on the Refuge are even-aged and less 

compositionally or structurally diverse. Except for a 

few, highly scattered individuals, there are very few 

snags and cavities present in some areas, except 

those in near benchmark conditions. Most of the 

snags that are present are of limited value to many 

cavity-nesting species (e.g., Wood Duck, Blackbacked Woodpecker, Pileated Woodpecker) due to 

their relatively small diameter. The creation of 

snags will accomplish several objectives: 

# Improve forest stand structural and compositional diversity.

# Increase the patchiness of canopy coverage 

and thereby enhance age structure of the 

stands.

# Provide nesting sites for cavity-nesting wildlife species.

# Increase woody debris on the forest floor for 

wildlife such as salamanders and invertebrates.

# Promote ecological processes.

# Provide organic material to soil layers 

altered by turn-of-the-century wildfires.

Forest management at the Refuge should use all 

the necessary tools to meet ecologically-based 

objectives. In most stands, prescribed fire will not 

move succession forward as it may compound the 

effects of past wildfires by consuming soil organic 

matter, and promoting the establishment of jack 

pine. However, where patches of early successional 

species such as aspen and jack pine are to be maintained, prescribed fire may be applied, and in some 

later successional stands in near benchmark condition, prescribed fire here too may be used to maintain existing conditions. Elsewhere, commercial and 

non-commercial mechanical treatments may be 

used to move succession forward or maintain existing conditions. In all instances, Michigan Best Management Practices (MDNR) are used to provide the 

minimum standards for management. In particular, 

wherever streams, pools, or wetlands exist management should be buffered from the effects of logging 

activities (the exception is on pool dikes where many 

of the existing trees should be removed). At a minimum, a 100-foot management buffer on either side 

of streams and surrounding pools will be used to 

minimize soil disturbances. 

Wetland Management

Seney NWR is blessed with an abundance of 

water for its pool system (Table 8). As a result, 

drought and growing season flooding are not 

extremely important factors influencing water management. This unique and biologically complex pool 

system was constructed during the late 1930s and 

early 1940s, making it at least 65-70 years old. The 

pool system at Seney NWR uses gravity flow to 

manipulate water levels in all pools. Water enters 

the north end of the Refuge via rivers, ditches or 

creeks and flows generally southeast to the Manistique River. General ground slope is southeast at 

approximately 10 feet per mile. Existing impoundments have been developed by constructing dikes 

across the general slope to intercept rivers, creek, 

White pine stump and jack pine, Seney NWR. USFWS ditches and overland water flow. 

photo.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

38

Water Rights: Because of the general land slope 

of 10 feet per mile and the location of water control 

structures, upstream landowners are not affected 

by water management on the Refuge. In the State 

of Michigan, a land owner of the water course is 

entitled to have the stream flow by or through his or 

her property substantially undiminished in quantity 

and quality. The natural flow of the stream, however, 

is subject to the privilege of the upstream riparian 

owner to make “reasonable” use of the water as it 

flows past or through his or her land. The owner of 

Seney NWR, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is a 

riparian landowner and can make reasonable use of 

the water passing through the Refuge as long as 

such use is not to the detriment of lower riparian 

Table 8: Pool Name With Water Control Structures, Initial 

Flooding Date and Size at Seney NWR

Unit Pool Initial Flooding 

Date

Acreage 

(Open Water)

1 Show Pools (North and South) Spring 1937 57

Upper Goose Pen Spring 1937 27

Lower Goose Pen Spring 1937 93

A-1 Spring 1937 259

B-1 Spring 1937 243

C-1 Spring 1937 302

D-1 Spring 1937 197

E-1 Spring 1937 490

F-1 Fall 1936 258

G-1 Spring 1937 202

H-1 Spring 1937 111

I-1 Spring 1937 129

J-1 Spring 1937 214

 Unit 1 Total: 2,582 

2 A-2 Fall 1939 282

C-2 Fall 1939 501

M-2 Spring 1941 863

T-2 East Spring 1941 233

Unit 2 Total: 1,879

3 C-3 Fall 1942 702

Marsh Creek Late 1950s 950

Delta Creek Late 1950s 50

Unit 3 Total: 1,702

Total Pool Acreage 6,163
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

39

owners. Currently, water flows from the Refuge into 

the Manistique River without any major detriment 

in quantity to the downstream users. 

The Refuge has received a few requests to hold 

as much water as possible during spring periods of 

high flow in the Manistique River. These requests 

were made during flood stage conditions when the 

Refuge was unable to retain any more water. Water 

management will, when possible, attempt to reduce 

discharge into the Manistique River during these 

times as long as water levels on the Refuge are not 

high enough to damage dikes or control structures. 

Water Supply: Annual average precipitation is 

approximately 32 inches per year. Precipitation 

accounts for 60 percent of Refuge water intake. The 

bundant rainfall is essential to maintaining water 

evels in the managed pools because all 60 miles of 

Refuge dikes are constructed of sand and they have 

high profile seeps and subsequent high water loss. 

he remaining 40 percent of the Refuge water supply 

comes from the ditches, rivers, and creeks. Peak 

lows through the Refuge marsh and water system 

normally occur during spring. Snowmelt, frozen 

ground, and rain can combine to create destructive 

floods, although such events are rare. However during spring run-off daily attention to pool levels and 

structures is required. 

Pool History and Management: Most water level 

management prior to 1963 consisted of holding the 

pools at a stable levels throughout the year (Fjetland 1973). Some experimentation with drawdowns 

occurred when pools levels were lowered to facilitate repair work. As a result, the pools have a variety of management histories. From 1963-1969 the 

approach was to manage the pools with fluctuating 

water levels. The general practice was to maintain 

low level through the winter, raise them in the 

spring, hold high through the nesting season and 

then drop the levels through the rest of the summer. 

In 1970, partly as a result of recommendations by 

Fjetland (1973), stable level water management 

resumed until 1983. 

The current program is based on water level 

manipulations and maintenance of approximately 

6,163 surface acres within 21 man-made impoundments with water control structures (1993 Long 

Range Marsh and Water Management Plan). An 

additional 65,000 wetland acres are maintained naturally by precipitation, surface runoff, or by diversions and ditches associated with the man-made 

structures. Rotational water level drawdown and 

flooding management within the 21 pool provides 

resident and migratory birds with approximately 

1,500 acres of moist soil plant production annually. 

In addition, full and partial draw-downs produce an 

estimated 2,300 acres of emergent vegetation for 

nesting and brood habitat.

Each pool is managed for specific wildlife objectives as detailed in the current Annual Water Management Plan. This Plan is used to define detail pool 

objectives and associated water levels. It takes into 

account maintenance requirements and the objectives and water levels in adjacent pools’ Annual

Water Management Plans are guided by Long 

Range Marsh and Water Management Plan, written 

in 1993.

During spring and early summer, pools will be 

filled to the maximum permissible level unless the 

annual plan specifies otherwise. During late summer, water levels on most pools will be lowered 

approximately 1 foot to facilitate use of submergent 

vegetation by staging and migrating waterfowl and 

to provide some mudflats for use by Sandhill Crane, 

shorebirds, and Canada Goose. After October 15, 

impoundment levels will be maintained to accommodate over wintering of fish species and initial spring 

runoff. All Annual Water Level Management Plans 

are subject to change given the current environmental conditions. 

Once the CCP is completed for Seney NWR, the 

Long Range Marsh and Water Management Plan 

will be revised and incorporated into the Seney 

NWR Habitat Management Plan. 

F-Pool, Seney NWR. USFWS photo.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

40

Associated Plans and 

Initiatives

Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan

In 2005, Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) 

was completed to better manage wildlife species and 

their habitats of “greatest conservation need” in 

Michigan. The plan was developed with the support 

of funding from the State Wildlife Grant Program 

(SWG) created by Congress in 2001. The goal of the 

plan is to provide a common strategic framework 

that will enable Michigan’s conservation partners to 

jointly implement a long-term holistic approach for 

the conservation of all wildlife species. Members of 

the partnership include the Michigan Department of 

Natural Resources, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, The Nature Conservancy, Michigan Natural Features Inventory, 

academics from several Michigan universities, as 

well as many other agencies and conservation organizations. 

The Michigan Wildlife 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 (SGCN), which are those species 

with small or declining populations or other 

characteristics that make them vulnerable;

# Recommends actions that will help to keep 

common species common;

# Identifies and prioritizes conservation 

actions, research and survey needs, and 

long-term monitoring needed to assess the 

success of conservation efforts;

# Complements other conservation strategies, 

funding sources, planning initiatives, and 

legally mandated activities;

# Incorporates public participation to provide 

an opportunity for all conservation partners 

and Michigan residents to influence the 

future of resource management; 

# Provides guidance for use of SWG funds; and

# Provides a clear process for review and 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 refuges. 

Bird conservation planning efforts have evolved 

from a largely local, site-based orientation to a more 

regional, even inter-continental, landscape-oriented 

perspective (Figure 14). Several trans-national 

migratory bird conservation initiatives have 

emerged to help guide the planning and implementation process. The regional plans relevant to Seney 

NWR are: 

# The Upper Mississippi River/Great Lakes 

Joint Venture Implementation Plan of the 

North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan;

# The Partners in Flight Boreal Hardwood 

Transition [land] Bird Conservation Plan;

# The Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes 

Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan; and

# The Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes 

Regional Waterbird Conservation Plan.

All four conservation 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 in developing lists of priority bird species. The Service based 

its 2001 list of Non-game Birds of Conservation 

Concern primarily on the Partners in Flight, shorebird, and waterbird status assessment scores. 

Wildlife Species of 

Management Concern

Table 9 on page 42 summarizes information on 

the status and current habitat use of important wildlife species found on lands within by Seney NWR. 

Individual species, or species groups, were chosen 

because they are listed as Regional Resource Con-
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

41

servation Priorities or state-listed threatened or 

endangered species. Other species are listed due to 

their importance for economic or recreational reasons, because the Refuge or its partners monitor or 

survey them, or for their status as a nuisance or 

invasive species. 

Current Refuge Programs: 

Where We Are Today

Consistent with its authorizing legislation, Seney 

NWR conducts a broad array of wildlife management activities and provides a variety of visitor services. Refuge management has made significant 

progress in implementing these planned activities 

over the years since establishment. Refuge planning 

and management, however, are a continual work in 

process and evolve over time, depending on feedback and monitoring as well as changing values, 

needs, and priorities in wildlife management at the 

Refuge, regional, and national scale. 

This section summarizes current management 

programs, operations, and facilities at Seney NWR. 

It also describes the participation and cooperation 

of Refuge staff and management activities with our 

partnering agencies and stakeholders in the wider 

community on efforts to balance competing 

demands for natural resources, wildlife, and protection from environmental hazards.

Habitat Restoration

Many of the current management efforts on the 

Refuge focus on restoring ecosystems and wildlife 

habitats and populations that have declined since 

the intensive habitat modification and destruction 

wrought by Euro-American settlement, agricultural 

development and drainage projects. 

Prescribed Fire

Fires are a natural part of the Boreal Forest in 

the Great Lakes Ecosystem. Prior to European settlement, large fires (10,000 to 25,000 acres) swept 

across the landscape approximately every 25 to 35 

years (Drobyshev et al. In Press). This ecological 

disturbance shaped the composition and structure 

Figure 14: Bird Conservation Region 12, Boreal Hardwood Transition
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

42

Table 9: Wildlife Species of Conservation Concern at Seney NWR and Nearby Lands

Common Name Scientific Name Special Designations Occurence 

on the Refuge

a= Abundant

c= Common

u=Uncommon

r= Rareoccasional, 

vagrant, 

Preferred 

Habitat(s)

Region 3 

Conservation 

Priority

Regional 

Forester 

Sensitive

Michigan 

Special 

Animal

a c u r

Birds

Common Loon Gavia immer 3 3 3 3 OWA

Double-creasted Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus 3 3 OWA

American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus 3 3 3 OWE

Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis 3 3 3 3 OWE

Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax 3 3 3 3 OWE

Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator 3 3 3 3 OWA

Snow Goose Chen caerulescens 3 3 OWA

Canada Goose Branta canadensis 3 3 OWA

American Black Duck Anas rubripes 3 3 OWA

Canvasback Aythya valisineria 3 3 OWA

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis 3 3 OWA

Wood Duck Aix sponsa 3 3 OWA, OWE

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 3 3 OWA, OWE

Blue-winged Teal Anas discors 3 3 OWA, OWE

Northern Pintail Anas acuta 3 3 OWA, OWE

Osprey Pandion haliaetus 3 3 OWA

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

3 3 3 OWA

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus 3 3 3 3 OWE, GRA, 

HAY

Merlin Falco columbarius 3 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus 3 3 3 3 WMF, WCF

Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii 3 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

43

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentiles 3 3 3 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus 3 3 3 3 OWE, GRA, 

HAY, OLD

Spruce Grouse Falcipennis 

canadensis

3 3 3 DCF, WCF

Sharp-tailed Grouse Tympanuchus 

phasianellus

3 3 3 GRA, HAY, 

OLD

Yellow Rail Coturnicops 

noveboracensis

3 3 3 3 OWE

Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda 3 3 3 GRA, HAY, 

OLD

American Woodcock Scolopax minor 3 3 SUP

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca 3 3 SHO

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia 3 3 3 OWA

Common Tern Sterna hirundo 3 3 3 3 OWA

Black Tern Chlidonias niger 3 3 3 3 OWA, OWE

Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus 

erythropthalmus

3 3 SWE, SUP

Long-eared Owl Asio otus 3 3 3 DCF, DMF, 

WCF, WMF

Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa 3 3 OWE, GRA, 

HAY, OLD

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus 3 3 3 OWE, GRA, 

HAY, OLD

Boreal Owl Aegolius funereus 3 3 WDF

Whip-poor-will Troglodytes aedon 3 3 DCF, GRA, 

HAY, OLD

Black-backed Woodpecker Picoides arcticus 3 3 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Table 9: Wildlife Species of Conservation Concern at Seney NWR and Nearby Lands

Common Name Scientific Name Special Designations Occurence 

on the Refuge

a= Abundant

c= Common

u=Uncommon

r= Rareoccasional, 

vagrant, 

Preferred 

Habitat(s)

Region 3 

Conservation 

Priority

Regional 

Forester 

Sensitive

Michigan 

Special 

Animal

acur
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

44

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus 3 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes 

erythrocephalus

3 3 GRA, HAY, 

OLD

Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi 3 3 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Yellow-bellied Flycatcher2 Empidonax 

flaviventris

3 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris 3 3 OWE, SWE

Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis 3 3 SWE

Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina 3 3 MMF, DCF

Swainson's Thrush2 Catharus ustulatus 3 3 WCF, WMF

Black-throated Blue Warbler Dendroica 

caerulescens

3 3 3 MDF

Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis 3 3 MDF, WMF, 

MMF

Kirtland's Warbler Dendroica kirtlandii 3 3 3 DCF

Connecticut Warbler Oporornis agilis 3 3 3 SUP

Cape May Warbler Dendroica tigrina 3 3 WCF, WMF

Bay-breasted Warbler Dendroica castanea 3 3 WCF, WMF

Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulean 3 3 3 3 WMF, WCF

Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera 3 3 SUP

Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla 3 GRA, HAY, 

OLD, SUP

Le Conte's Sparrow Ammodramus 

leconteii

3 3 3 OWE

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus 3 3 3 GRA, HAY, 

OLD, PAS

Table 9: Wildlife Species of Conservation Concern at Seney NWR and Nearby Lands

Common Name Scientific Name Special Designations Occurence 

on the Refuge

a= Abundant

c= Common

u=Uncommon

r= Rareoccasional, 

vagrant, 

Preferred 

Habitat(s)

Region 3 

Conservation 

Priority

Regional 

Forester 

Sensitive

Michigan 

Special 

Animal

acur
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

45

Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna 3 3 GRA, HAY, 

OLD, PAS

Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta 3 3 3 GRA, HAY, 

OLD, PAS

Mammals:

Water Shrew Sorex palustris 3 3 MDF, MMF, 

MCF, SHO

Northern Bat Myotis septentrionalis 3 3 DDF

Gray Wolf Canis lupus 3 3 3 DDF, MDF, 

DMF, MMF, 

DCF, M CF, 

SU P, O LD , 

GRA, PAS, 

HAY, SHO

Black Bear Ursus americanus 3 3 DDF, MDF, 

DMF, MMF, 

DCF, MCF

River Otter Lutra canadensis 3 3 OWA

Badger Taxidae taxus 3 3 GRA, PAS, 

HAY

Marten Martes americana 3 3 DCF, MCF

Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis 3 3 DCF, M CF, 

WCF

Bobcat Lynx rufus 3 3 DMF, MMF, 

DCF, MCF

Moose Alces alces 3 3 WCF, SWE

Fish:

Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis 3 3 OWA

Pugnose Shiner Notropis anogenus 3 3 OWA

Table 9: Wildlife Species of Conservation Concern at Seney NWR and Nearby Lands

Common Name Scientific Name Special Designations Occurence 

on the Refuge

a= Abundant

c= Common

u=Uncommon

r= Rareoccasional, 

vagrant, 

Preferred 

Habitat(s)

Region 3 

Conservation 

Priority

Regional 

Forester 

Sensitive

Michigan 

Special 

Animal

acur
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

46

of vegetative communities and over the millennia 

many native plants and animals have not only 

adapted to but have become dependent on fire. For 

example, Yellow Rails depend on open expanses of 

sedge marsh for breeding and Red Crossbills feed 

almost exclusively on seeds produced in mature red 

and white pine forests; both of these habitat types 

are maintained by fire. 

With human settlement came extensive logging 

followed by catastrophic fire and then years of fire 

suppression. These anthropomorphic activities have 

had a profound impact on the fire frequency and 

resulting vegetation at Seney NWR. The frequency 

of small fires (fewer than 250 acres) has increased, 

but large fires are no longer allowed to sweep across 

the landscape (Drobyshev et al. In Press). As a 

result, shrubs encroach upon the sedge wetlands 

and jack pine dominates sites that were once inhabited by red and white pines.

At Seney NWR, prescribed fire is primarily used 

to set back succession in the wetlands, to conserve 

early successional forests (e.g., jack pine, aspen), or 

to conserve upland old fields and other openlands. 

In some upland areas, after mechanical tree 

removal to restore the dominance of red and white 

pine, periodic fire will help maintain this dominance. 

In wetlands, periodic burning is used to kill the 

shrubs and regenerate the sedges. 

Sea Lamprey Petromyzon marinus 3 3 OWA

Lake Sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens 3 3 3 OWA

Herpofauna 

Wood Turtle Clemmys insculpta 3 3 3 WCF, SHO, 

SWE

Blanding’s Turtle Emydoidea blandingii 3 3 3 WCF, SWE, 

SHO, GRA, 

OLD, OWE

Chorus Frog Pseudacris triseriata 3 3 WDF, MDF, 

GRA, OWE

Four-toed Salamander Hemidactylium 

scutatum

3 3 WCF, OWE

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

Table 9: Wildlife Species of Conservation Concern at Seney NWR and Nearby Lands

Common Name Scientific Name Special Designations Occurence 

on the Refuge

a= Abundant

c= Common

u=Uncommon

r= Rareoccasional, 

vagrant, 

Preferred 

Habitat(s)

Region 3 

Conservation 

Priority

Regional 

Forester 

Sensitive

Michigan 

Special 

Animal

acur
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

47

Prescribed fires at Seney NWR are being carried 

out under the guidance of the Refuge’s Fire Management Plan, which calls for burning an average of 

6,000 acres annually. Post-burn monitoring is used 

to ensure prescribed burning is meeting objectives. 

The Fire Management Plan also contains a “Fire 

Use” provision which allows for the management of 

a wildland fire as a prescribed fire on nearly 62,000 

acres or 65 percent of Seney NWR.

Invasive Plants and Other Pests

Many non-native plants and pathogens have been 

identified at the Refuge. Exotic plant species presently found at the Refuge include glossy buckthorn, 

multiflora rose, reed canary grass, purple loosestrife, spotted knapweed, tartarian honeysuckle, 

leafy spurge, silvery cinquefoil, timothy, live-forever, 

Japanese barberry, St. John’s wort, Canada thistle, 

musk mallow, yellow sweet clover, smooth brome, 

butter-and-eggs, orchard grass, Kentucky bluegrass, catnip, shepherd’s purse, ryegrass, Queen 

Anne’s lace, ox-eye daisy, tall buttercup, bladder 

campion, bird’s foot trefoil, orange hawkweed, healall, plantain, yellow goat’s-beard, and field sow-thistle. However, many more species occur in the Eastern Upper Peninsula and are likely to colonize the 

Refuge in the near future. The Refuge staff watches 

for new invaders and attempts to manage them 

appropriately. 

Dutch Elm Disease

Historically, one of the largest and most dominant 

members of Refuge hardwood forest communities, 

American elm has been virtually eliminated from 

the Eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan by Dutch 

elm disease. Spread principally by the European 

elm beetle, the fungal pathogen arrived in Michigan 

in 1950 (Dickman and Leefers 2003). By the 1970s, 

Dutch Elm disease had so heavily infested the hardwood areas around the Chicago Farm, that all of the 

elm was logged. Today, American elm trees can still 

be found on the Refuge, but they are short-lived and 

never attain the size or stature they once had. 

Glossy Buckthorn

Glossy buckthorn is an exotic invasive shrub 

within many Midwestern wetlands, including much 

of Unit 1 of Seney NWR. It grows as a tall shrub, 

and can be identified by its glossy, dark green leaves 

and gray bark. The U.S. Forest Service considers 

glossy buckthorn a “Category One” invasive species 

because it is highly invasive, invades natural habitats, and replaces native species. Where glossy 

buckthorn becomes established, it out-competes 

natural vegetation (e.g., Alnus, Betula, Prunus, 

Viburnum, and Salix species), can become a monoculture, and can alter ecosystem patterns and processes. Previous studies have indicated that 

invasions of glossy buckthorn along wetland areas 

have resulted in decreased plant species diversity 

and altered hydrology (Devine 1999), with negative 

implications for wildlife habitat. 

Active management of glossy buckthorn is critical to minimize the spread of this species to other 

wetland areas, and to rehabilitate those areas presently impacted. At Seney NWR, glossy buckthorn is 

the main invasive plant species which the Refuge 

manages. Nagel et al. (2008) studied the efficacy of 

different management actions on reducing the 

amount and distribution of glossy buckthorn at the 

Refuge. Treatments were implemented in concert 

with control efforts currently practiced. Stump 

application of 20 percent glyphosate alone proved 

ineffective 1 year after treatment, with no difference in sprout density between this concentration of 

herbicide applied by sponge application, scorching 

with the flame of a propane torch, or untreated controls. Additional low-volume broadcast application 

of 5 percent glyphosate to resprouts the following 

year significantly reduced sprout density as compared to scorching and controls, with no difference 

between scorch treatments and the controls. Lowvolume spraying of the herbicide to extirpate seedlings reduced the number of stems by 96 and 91 percent 1 and 2 years following treatment. There was 

no difference in seedling density between scorching 

treatments and the controls. It appears the most 

effective management option for reducing glossy 

buckthorn is repetitive herbicide application, possibly for more than 2 years (Corace et al. 2008). In 

Mixed pine forest, Seney NWR. USFWS photo.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

48

addition to implementation of treatments, monitoring is critical for ensuring an effective glossy buckthorn management program.

 Beech Bark Disease 

Beech bark disease (BBD) is a serious threat to 

the American beech tree and northern hardwood 

forests. This disease is caused by an interaction of 

the exotic sap-feeding beech scale insect (Cryptococcus fagi) and at least three species of Nectria fungi. 

Beech scale was first introduced to North America 

from Europe sometime around 1890. By the 1930s, 

the scale was found in Maine and the Maritime 

Provinces of eastern Canada. Other areas of New 

England and New York were found to have the scale 

in their forests by the 1960s. By 1975, the scale was 

in northeastern Pennsylvania. Presently, it is also 

found in West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, 

Tennessee, Ohio, Ontario, and Michigan. Although 

the disease has likely been in Michigan for quite 

some time, it was not until 2000-2001 that beech 

bark disease was reported in nine counties in Michigan’s northern Lower Peninsula and the Upper Peninsula counties of Luce, Chippewa, Alger, and Delta.

Beech bark disease has several effects on trees, 

stands, and ecosystems. These include reduced leaf 

size, discolored foliage, dieback, reduced tree 

growth, reduced mast, and tree mortality. In 2003, 

three long-term beech bark disease monitoring 

plots were established on the Refuge. The objectives are to: 1) identify the extent of Michigan’s 

beech resource that is affected by BBD, 2) collect 

baseline data on current conditions of the beech 

resource and northern hardwood stands containing 

beech before this resource is affected by BBD, and 

3) monitor changes in the beech resource and northern hardwood forests due to BBD and other disturbances. The non-native scale insect associated with 

BBD was first documented on the Refuge in 2003.

 In 2006 a northern hardwood stand assessment 

and evaluation was conducted at the Refuge (Whitman and Corace unpub. manuscript). Specific 

research questions posed were: 1) what is the present composition and structure of the Refuge’s northern hardwood-dominated stands?; 2) how might the 

loss of American Beech affect forest composition 

and structure?; 3) what will regenerate in the canopy gaps created by American Beech mortality?; 4) 

and what might be the wildlife implications? In general, all stands had a considerable American beech 

component and the American beech trees found are 

highly susceptible to beech bark disease based on 

their size and suspected age. Eventually, tree mortality caused by BBD will create canopy gaps in 

these stands followed by natural stand development 

and the concomitant mortality of shade intolerant 

trees. In the absence of active management, results 

suggest that in most of the resulting canopy gaps 

sugar maple will be dominant in the new cohort of 

seedlings and saplings. If conserving, enhancing, or 

restoring stand composition and structure is 

desired, management actions should focus on 

enhancing stand-level compositional diversity by 

promoting less common tree species, such as eastern hemlock and yellow birch. This can most effectively be done by increasing the canopy gaps 

created by beech mortality near existing yellow 

birch and eastern hemlock trees. No harvesting of 

American beech trees is warranted, unless for 

safety reasons. 

Emerald Ash Borer

According to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, the natural range of Agrilus planipennis, the emerald ash borer (EAB), is eastern 

Russia, northern China, Japan, and Korea. It is 

unknown exactly when this exotic arrived on this 

continent, although it is suspected that the carrier 

was ash wood used for stabilizing cargo in ships or 

for packing or crating heavy consumer products. In 

Michigan all species of North American ash appear 

to be susceptible. In the absence any natural enemies and with an ample supply of ash trees that lack 

any form of resistance to them, ash borers have 

exploded in population size during the last 2 years. 

Trees in woodlots as well as landscaped areas tend 

to be most vulnerable to infection. For the most 

part, affected trees or branches appear to be 2 

inches in diameter or larger. The canopy of infested 

Bog, Seney NWR. USFWS photo.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

49

trees begins to thin above infested portions of the 

trunk and major branches because the borer 

destroys the water and nutrient conducting tissues 

under the bark. Heavily infested trees exhibit canopy die-back usually starting at the top of the tree. 

One-third to one-half of the branches may die in 1 

year. Most of the canopy will be dead within 2 years 

of when symptoms are first observed, though occasionally ash trees will push out sprouts from the 

trunk after the upper portions of the tree dies. At 

the Refuge, black or white ash are not a dominant 

member of any forest community, so the adverse 

impact of EAB may be minimal. However, the Refuge is part of an EAB monitoring program run by 

Schoolcraft County. 

Nuisance Species Control

Seney NWR has little need to control nuisance 

species. Presently only beaver needs to be managed. 

Beaver are managed because they plug water-control structures, which obstructs water flow to the 

pool system and can negatively impact the dikes and 

dams. Trapping is the primary means of controlling 

nuisance beaver. The Refuge maintains a list of 

trappers who are asked to trap specific areas where 

beaver are causing problems. The number of beaver 

taken annually varies annually depending upon the 

number of problems areas and the number of beaver contributing to the problem. In 2006, 31 beaver 

were trapped and the year before four were 

trapped. 

Brown-headed Cowbirds are of concern to those 

wishing to conserve migratory songbirds due to 

their parasitism of other bird species nests. Management of cowbirds by lethal means has aided in 

the recovery of endangered species, such as Kirtland’s Warbler, and other passerines of conservation 

concern (Chace et al. 2005). At Seney NWR, cowbirds are frequently observed foraging on the headquarters lawn, but relatively infrequently observed 

elsewhere. Using a combination of commercial bird 

seed and “decoy” birds, a total of 41 cowbirds (19 

males, 22 females) were caught and killed during 

April and May 2006 in accordance with a state permit. Future low-cost management efforts such as 

this should continue.

Wildlife Monitoring and Research

Seney NWR staff use literature reviews, monitoring and research to guide its management, and 

all play a vital role in wildlife habitat management at 

the Refuge. Wildlife monitoring consists of surveys 

and censuses of selected species or species groups 

and are typically made on an annual basis. Wildlife 

monitoring is generally done by Seney NWR staff 

and volunteers, and consists of organized surveys 

and or censuses or a compilation of observations and 

recorded sightings made over the course of the year. 

Research studies are usually undertaken in cooperation with universities or other government agencies or NGOs, often with the direct participation and 

cooperation of Refuge staff and assisted by volunteers. 

Surveys and Censuses

Most surveys and censuses at Seney NWR are 

guided by the 1990 Wildlife Inventory Plan. This 

plan is currently under revision and should be completed within the next few years. 

Endangered and Threatened Species – On March 

12, 2007 the gray wolf was officially delisted as an 

endangered species. However, a federal court decision on September 29, 2008 overturned the delisting 

action and gray wolves in the Great Lakes area are 

once again listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The Refuge has two or three collared wolves and four to six non-collared wolves 

using the Refuge during any time of the year. The 

Michigan DNR conducts aerial surveys for the 

wolves all year long and reports the information to 

the Refuge. The Bald Eagle was delisted on August 

9, 2007. There are nine Bald Eagle nests on the Refuge, four to five of which are in good to fair condition. The Refuge produces two to four eaglets 

annually. Eaglets are banded every other year by 

researchers from Clemson University, and the data 

are added to the national database.

Bald Eagle banding, Seney NWR. USFWS photo.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

50

Waterfowl – Waterfowl surveys are conducted 

each spring and fall to document use of the Refuge 

pools during migration. Weekly roadside surveys 

are conducted by driving the pool dike system and 

counting all waterfowl seen. Spring surveys are conducted from ice out until the first week of May. Fall 

surveys are conducted from early September to the 

middle of November or first ice up. The Refuge has 

waterfowl count data going back to 1937. Current 

species distribution has Trumpeter Swan, Canada 

Goose, Ring-necked Duck, Hooded Merganser, and 

Mallard as the most common species that are 

observed and nest on the Refuge. Other common 

migrants include American Wigeon, Bufflehead, and 

Wood Duck. There are greater numbers of duck 

species using the Refuge during the fall migration 

than the spring migration. The Common Loon first 

appeared at Seney NWR in 1939 and has been a fixture on the waterscape ever since. To date, Seney 

NWR has one of the most intensively monitored 

Common Loon populations in North America. The 

population is annually monitored, nests are checked 

for reproductive output, and young are banded. In 

recent years, Seney NWR has averaged 15 territories with pairs and produced about 12 chicks each 

year. 

Trumpeter Swans – Trumpeter Swans were first 

reintroduced to the Refuge in 1991 and the first 

recorded nesting of these swans was in 1992, when a 

pair bred as 3-year olds (Corace et al. 2006). A total 

of 44 birds were introduced from 1991 to 1993. Currently the Refuge supports 240 adult birds, 30 swan 

nests, and hatches out over 100 cygnets. Trumpeter 

Swan surveys are conducted in the same way the 

waterfowl surveys are done, except the focus is on 

the swans. Data that are collected include the total 

number of adult swans, total number of swan nests, 

and the number of cygnets hatched per nest. Once 

cygnets have hatched, the numbers of cygnets per 

nest are tracked over time until fledging occurs in 

October. Data are currently being collected on the 

nesting ecology of the birds, on the number of eggs 

per nest, eggs hatched per nest and egg viability. 

Marshbirds and other Migratory Birds – Seney 

NWR conducts surveys for secretive marshbirds 

each spring and early summer. Species that are surveyed for include (but are not limited to) American 

Bittern, Pied-billed Grebe, Sora and Virginia Rail. 

Passive calls and call playback techniques are used. 

The most common marshbirds encountered during 

the surveys in order of most common to least common are the American Bittern, Sora Rail and Virginia Rail. Seney NWR is currently expanding its 

Marshbird Survey Program by adding more routes 

to the survey to get a more complete coverage of the 

Refuge and develop a population index to these 

secretive birds. Also, the Refuge participates in the 

American Woodcock Peenting Survey that is run by 

the USFWS Migratory Bird Management Office 

out of Fort Snelling, Minnesota. The Refuge has one 

survey route for woodcock on the northern boundary. The Refuge participates in a spring and fall 

Sandhill Crane count. The spring count is conducted 

by the International Crane Foundation out of Baraboo, Wisconsin, and Seney NWR serves as the 

Schoolcraft County coordinator for the survey. The 

fall count is conducted by the USFWS Migratory 

Bird Management Office out of Fort Snelling, Minnesota. The Refuge has one USGS Breeding Bird 

Survey Route within the boundary of the Refuge 

and conducts migratory songbird point counts each 

June. The more common species that are using the 

Refuge at this time include Hermit Thrush, Oven 

Bird, Nashville Warbler, and Blue Jay. 

Upland Game Birds – As part of an MDNR, 

Wildlife Division-led effort to survey Ruffed Grouse, 

Seney NWR conducts a roadside route to count the 

number of males heard drumming. The route has 10 

listening stops that are consistent from year to year. 

The number of Ruffed Grouse heard during a fixed 

time interval (4 minutes) is recorded at each stop. 

Data are summarized by the Michigan Department 

of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division as the number of grouse heard per survey route. This survey 

provides the Wildlife Division an additional method 

to monitor the population. 

Sharp-tailed Grouse in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula – including those at Seney NWR – represent 

the most easterly distribution of the species in the 

United States. A state-listed species of special concern, the Sharp-tailed Grouse is an area-sensitive 

flagship species of large openland ecosystem complexes in the eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan. 

The annual lek survey is an attempt to estimate the 

population size of sharptails in Michigan.

Amphibians – Seney NWR is home to nine native 

species of anurans (frogs and toads). In recent 

years, many observers have been concerned with 

the apparent rarity, decline, and/or population dieoffs of several of these species in Michigan and elsewhere. These concerns were not only for the species 

themselves, but also for the ecosystems on which 

they depend. As a result, the Michigan Frog and 

Toad Survey was initiated in 1988. Seney NWR has 

one survey route that consists of 10 wetland sites 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

51

that are visited by an observer three times annually: 

in early spring, late spring, and summer. At each 

site, the observer identifies the species present on 

the basis of their breeding season calls or songs, and 

makes a simple estimate of abundance for each species, using a Call Index Value of 1, 2, or 3. 

Other Raptors – Refuge volunteers, interns, visiting researchers and staff compile observations of 

raptors at the Refuge, especially owls and woodland 

hawks. The Refuge also has nesting Osprey on the 

Refuge. There are five nests on the Refuge with two 

or three active at any one time. The Refuge produces on average about three to four chicks per 

year. Chicks are banded each year by researchers.

Furbearers – The Refuge works in conjunction 

with the MDNR in identifying trends in furbearer 

populations. Species seen during this survey include 

gray wolf, the reintroduced fisher and American 

marten, the Federally regulated bobcat and river 

otter, and a number of other furbearers of varying 

status. Seney NWR has two survey routes used to 

conduct a structured winter track count to assist the 

MDNR in determining the distribution and relative 

abundance of several furbearers and selected prey 

species, simultaneously. 

Studies and Investigations

The Refuge has a long tradition of hosting a variety of research projects that have assisted in the 

management of the Refuge. The Refuge’s first peerreviewed publication was in The Journal of Wildlife 

Management in 1947. Written by the first Refuge 

Manager, C. S. Johnson, the article was entitled 

“Canada Goose Management, Seney National Wildlife Refuge.” Research that has occurred on the 

lands of Seney NWR has covered every decade 

since 1940 and has yielded more than 81 research 

projects, 31 peer-reviewed publications, 14 Master’s 

Theses, and three Doctoral Dissertations. 

Seney NWR recognizes the important and much 

needed role research has in the management of federal lands. The Refuge’s vision statement includes a 

section about research: 

“Students and researchers will be encouraged 

to use the Refuge as an outdoor laboratory for 

biological and ecological research that focuses 

on understanding natural patterns and processes and developing habitat management 

techniques.” 

Seney NWR encourages researchers to actively 

pursue projects with the staff. Seney NWR has the 

infrastructure (12-person bunkhouse, equipment, 

volunteers, and other facilities) to support a wide 

array of research projects. Recent and ongoing 

studies include (but are not limited to) the following: 

Joint Fire Science Project: Restoration-based 

fuel reduction recommendations for mixed-pine 

forests of Upper Michigan – This project was initiated in 2005 by Seney NWR Refuge Forester and 

co-principal investigators from The Ohio State University and the U.S. Forest Service. The project 1) 

developed a better understanding of the fire history 

regimes, fuel loadings, and forest composition and 

structural characteristics of pre-European settlement and post-settlement mixed-pine forest; 2) analyzed current fire hazard and forest stewardship of 

mixed-pine forest ecosystems; and 3) developed restoration-based fuel reduction recommendations for 

mixed-pine forest ecosystems of eastern Upper 

Michigan. 

The Effects of Summer Grazing from Trumpeter 

Swans on the Aquatic Macrophyte Communities in 

Seney NWR – This project was initiated in 2006 as a 

result of the successful reintroduction of the swans 

over 15 years ago. The project is headed by the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh in conjunction with 

the Refuge Biologist. About 240 Trumpeter Swans 

use Seney NWR, and concern has been raised as to 

whether the swans are impacting the pools. This ongoing project has set up feeding exclosures in the 

pools to keep swans out of areas where they are 

known to feed. The project will assess the impacts 

the swans are having on the types and distribution 

of the macrophytes in the pools.

Snapping turtle, Seney NWR. USFWS photo.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

52

Fire ecology in Northern Sedge Meadows: Factors Influencing Yellow Rails and Other Birds at 

Seney NWR – This project was initiated in 2006 by 

the Refuge Biologist and USGS-Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, North 

Dakota, and was originally entitled “Evaluating 

Techniques for Determining Habitat Use of Yellow 

Rails.” Seney NWR often hosts a substantial number of breeding Yellow Rails in large expanses of 

sedge meadows. Previous studies at Seney NWR 

and elsewhere have described shallow flooding and 

vegetative conditions preferred by rails and have 

documented a positive response by rails to habitat 

changes due to prescribed fire (Burkman 1993). 

However, in-depth examinations of how rails use 

sedge meadows and the interacting factors influencing rail use of burned areas are lacking. This project 

has completed one field season and upon examination of the first year data and lack of Yellow Rails 

found for the telemetry portion, a new study has 

evolved to look at all birds that use the wet sedge 

meadows and their response and the vegetation 

response to prescribed fire. 

Clutch Size and Nest Site Characteristics of 

Trumpeter Swans – This project was initiated in 

2006 by the Refuge Biologist. The project is evaluating the success of the Trumpeter Swan reintroduction program by looking at demographic 

characteristics of the birds. Clutch size, egg viability, and fecundity are all important variables to measure when determining how well an animal adapts to 

a new area. After 1 year of data collection, the swans 

at Seney NWR on average have larger clutches than 

Trumpeter Swans in other flyways. Data collection 

continued into 2007 and 2008 as time and funding 

permited. 

Rapid Change in Species Composition of Mammal Communities in the Northern Great Lakes – 

This project was initiated by the Museum of Zoology and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary 

Biology, University of Michigan. The Upper Peninsula fauna is of particular interest to biologists 

because it represents a transition zone where many 

boreal species reach the southern limits of their distributions while several austral species are at or 

near their northern limits. Research has documented the range extensions of two small mammals, 

the white-footed mouse and southern flying squirrel, both of which are moving eastward and northward. Preliminary data also suggest that the 

eastern chipmunk is increasing in abundance relative to the more boreal least chipmunk. It is argued, 

based on analyses of population fluctuations of the 

white-footed mouse, that these changes are likely 

due to climatic warming. The project is ongoing.

Impacts of a Constructed Pool on a Fen in Seney 

NWR: Restoration Implications – This project was 

initiated with USGS-BRD-Great Lakes Science 

Center and Seney NWR staff. The study examined 

the nature and extent of degradation to the Marsh 

Creek wetland caused by alteration of natural 

hydrology and provided base line data for the restoration project. Wetlands bordering Marsh Creek 

were quantitatively sampled to characterize the 

wetland plant communities, groundwater hydrology 

and water quality. Ecological and hydrologic differences were observed in the wetlands upstream and 

downstream from the C-3 Pool. Redirecting some of 

the water in the C-3 Pool down the historic Marsh 

Creek channel could restore surface flow in the 

creek, increase the amount of disturbance associated with fluctuating water levels, and affect wetland plant communities.

An Experimental Approach to Determinging the 

Efficacy of Glossy Buckthorn Management at 

Seney NWR – This project was initiated by the Refuge Forester and the School of Forest Resources 

and Environmental Science, Michigan Technological 

University. Glossy buckthorn is an exotic species 

that has become a major invasive plant within wetlands of Seney NWR and elsewhere in the Midwest. 

Invasion of glossy buckthorn along wetland areas 

has resulted in decreased plant species diversity 

and altered hydrology, with implications for wildlife 

habitat management and restoration. The objectives 

of this research were to test the efficacy of different 

management actions on seedlings and mature glossy 

buckthorn shrubs. Treatments were implemented in 

concert with control efforts currently practiced on 

the Refuge. Stump application of 20 percent glyphosate alone proved ineffective 1 year after treatment with no difference in sprout density between 

herbicide, scorching, or controls. Additional broadcast application of 5 percent glyphosate to resprouts the following year significantly reduced 

sprout density as compared to scorching and controls. It appears the most effective management 

option for reducing glossy buckthorn is repetitive 

herbicide application possibly for greater than 2 

years (Nagel et al. 2008, Corace et al. 2008). 

Relationship of Small Mammals and Habitat 

Variables in the Context of Forest Restoration at 

Seney NWR – This project was initiated by the Refuge Forester and the University of Michigan. Infor-
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

53

mation regarding what habitat variables affects 

small mammal diversity and abundance may help 

guide management decisions and restoration efforts 

at Seney NWR. Fieldwork included small mammal 

trapping and the collection of habitat variables 

among three macro-habitat categories of coniferdominated and hardwood forest stands. At the 

macro-habitat scale, no significant differences were 

found between small mammal captures and site categories on either deciduous or coniferous plots. 

However, the results did show that microhabitat features are important in predicting the distribution of 

small mammals. Binomial regression analysis identified three important habitat elements on which 

managers should concentrate restoration efforts: 

coarse woody debris, snags, and tree species diversity (Harrington 2006). 

Mercury Exposure in Common Loons of the 

Upper Peninsula – This long-term project was initiated by Common Coast Research and Conservation 

and former Refuge staff. In concert with banding 

activities that have enabled long-term research into 

the population dynamics and life history of the Common Loon, blood and feather samples have been collected from Upper Peninsula adults and juveniles 

since 1991 for the purpose of assessing their exposure to the persistent neurotoxin mercury (Hg). 

Extensive sampling on the federally protected lands 

of Isle Royale National Park, Ottawa National Forest, and Seney NWR have focused upon juvenile 

loons and their utility as a bio-indicator of mercury 

loading and uptake within specific lake environments. Results from this ongoing research have 

suggested that 1) juvenile loons, as top-level piscivorous integrators, represent an accurate, efficient 

and underutilized barometer of single-source Hg 

bioavailability, 2) some Upper Peninsula lakes are 

among the most merucyr-contaminated ecosystems 

in the northern Great Lakes region, and 3) Seney 

NWR could, for reasons of geography, hydrology, 

and infrastructure, serve as an exceptional site for a 

broad-base mercury monitoring program 

Predator and Exotic Wildlife 

Management

Sea Lamprey

The sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) is an 

invader from the Atlantic Ocean that entered the 

Great Lakes following the dredging of the Welland 

Canal. This parasitic fish spends part of its life cycle 

feeding on the blood and body fluids of native fishes 

by attaching, via a suction mouth, and rasping a hole 

in the side of their host using a toothed-tongue. 

Each sea lamprey destroys up to 40 pounds of fish 

during its adult lifetime. Great Lakes sea lamprey 

populations exploded during the 1940s and 1950s 

and contributed significantly to the collapse of fish 

species, such as lake trout, that were the economic 

mainstay of commercial fisheries. 

Since 1954, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission 

has administered the Great Lakes Sea Lamprey 

Management Program. The Service, as the U.S. 

agent for sea lamprey control, has managed sea 

lamprey populations in U.S. waters of the Great 

Lakes. The primary method for controlling sea lamprey uses the lampricide TFM (3-trifluoromethyl-4-

nitrophenol) to kill larval sea lampreys burrowed in 

stream sediment. Barriers that block upstream 

migration of spawning sea lampreys provide a second important method of control.

During 1971, sea lampreys were detected in the 

Manistique River near Germfask. Prior to that, the 

Manistique Paper Co. Inc (MPI) dam, located near 

the mouth of the Manistique River, effectively 

served as a barrier to upstream infestation. During 

1974, the river was treated with TFM and the MPI 

dam was patched to prevent further infestation of 

the watershed. Over the years, patchwork of the 

dam had been successful. However, during the late 

1990s, the dam deteriorated further and sea lampreys again colonized the watershed. The river was 

treated with lampricides during 2003, 2004, and 

2007. Since the Manistique River has become one of 

the largest contributors of parasitic sea lamprey in 

the Great Lakes, it is anticipated that additional 

Seney NWR. USFWS photo.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

54

lampricide treatments will be required to control 

the infestation to protect the highly valued fisheries 

of northern Lake Michigan.

Repeated TFM treatments can be problematic 

because TFM kills native lamprey larvae along with 

sea lampreys. Seney NWR provides habitat to three 

species of native lamprey (Appendix C). Although 

native lampreys tend to be more resistant to lampricide than sea lampreys, the difference in toxic 

response is not sufficient to selectively remove only 

sea lampreys during a lampricide treatment. A 

decrease in native lamprey populations has been 

documented in many treated Great Lake streams 

(Schuldt and Gould 1980; NRCC, 1985). The Service assesses the status of lamprey populations 

before and after lampricide treatments, and maintains a long-term database on these assessment 

activities. These surveys show that native lamprey 

continue to populate most streams in the Manistique 

River basin, although numbers may be reduced in 

reaches where TFM treatments occur.

The Refuge staff is currently involved in the planning of a new sea lamprey barrier at the site of the 

MPI dam, which could be operational by 2012. Reinstatement of an effective barrier to sea lamprey 

migration in the lower river is currently the only 

way to eliminate the need for repeated lampricide 

treatments.

Interagency Coordination 

Activities

It takes partnerships to run a national wildlife 

refuge, and Seney NWR has a long history of working with others to “get the job done” for wildlife. 

Examples range from the first manager’s partnership with the Civilian Conservation Corps, which 

built many of Seney’s impoundments, to the last 

manager’s work with the Coast Guard and private 

industry to protect Common Tern nesting colonies 

on Lake Michigan. Currently the Refuge has 

strong partnerships with the Michigan DNR, universities (Michigan State, Michigan Tech, the University of Michigan and The Ohio State University), 

other Government Agencies (U.S. Forest Service, 

National Park Service, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Geological Survey) and non-government agencies (The 

Nature Conservancy, Seney Natural History Association, Michigan Audubon Society, and Great Lakes 

Shipwreck Society). Of particular note are the Refuge’s research and fire and public use programs, 

which would not exist without partnerships.

Public Recreation and Environmental 

Education

The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act emphasizes wildlife management 

and that all prospective public uses on any given refuge must be found compatible with the wildliferelated refuge purposes before they can be allowed. 

The Refuge System Improvement Act also identifies six priority uses of national wildlife refuges that 

in most cases will be considered compatible uses. 

They are:

# Hunting

# Fishing

# Wildlife Observation

# Wildlife Photography

# Environmental Education

# Environmental Interpretation

Seney NWR supports all six of these activities. In 

so doing it attracts 43,000 to 88,000 visitors per year. 

The number of people that visit per year is dependent upon many factors, some which the Refuge 

controls, such as the number of programs offered 

and outreach efforts. Over the past 4 years we have 

continued to scale back on public use activities due 

to lack of staff. Factors beyond our control, such as 

the weather, economy and game populations, also 

affect our visitation. 

Tribal Consent Decree

On November 2, 2007 the United States, State of 

Michigan and five Tribes signed an Inland Consent 

Decree. This Decree affirms the rights of the Bay 

Mills Indian Community, Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of 

the Chippewa Indians, Grand Traverse Band of 

Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Little River Band 

Ottawa Indians and Little Traverse Bay Band of 

Odawa Indians to exercise hunting and fishing 

rights on specified lands which were ceded by the 

Tribes under the Treaty of 1836. Seney NWR is 

within the treaty area. Therefore, to the extent a 

particular activity on Seney NWR is subject to State 

regulations those rights shall be governed by the 

Decree and applicable federal regulations. To the 

extent that an activity is not subject to State regulations, the exercise of Tribal rights shall be governed 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

55

by a memorandum of understanding between the 

Tribes and USFWS and by applicable Federal laws 

and regulations.

Visitor Services

Seney NWR provides the following facilities and 

opportunities for visitors:

# The Visitor Center is open May 15 to Oct 15, 

9 a.m. to 5 p.m., 7 days per week.

# Informational and interpretive displays 

including: children’s touch table, who’s calling sound ID, wolf-coyote comparisons, loon 

diorama, bathroom blurbs, monarch life 

cycle live exhibit. 

# Visitors can view a 14-minute slide show that 

provides orientation to the Refuge.

# The Pine Ridge Nature Trail is a 1.4-mile, 

self guided, sign in place, interpretive hiking 

trail (signs identify plants and interpret how 

they support wildlife).

# Marshland Wildlife Drive provides 7 miles of 

gravel road with an additional 3.5-mile fishing loop.

# There is an accessible fishing pier with 

observation scopes. 

# Fishing-line collection containers.

# Three observation decks are located on the 

Refuge, each with a spotting scope and interpretive panel (loons, swans, eagles).

# There are designated areas for hunting deer, 

grouse, hare, woodcock and bear.

# The Refuge has a photo/observation blind 

that receives limited use.

# More than 90 miles of backcountry roads are 

open to hiking and biking.

# Native gardens are planted around the Visitor Center. 

# Five cross-country ski trails are groomed 

weekly.

# Binoculars are available for loan at the Visitor Center.

# Information kiosks are found at several locations on the Refuge including the Visitor 

Center and Wigwams Pavilion.

Hunting 

Hunting on the Refuge is very popular with local 

residents and many visitors. There are two hunting 

units on the Refuge. Hunting Area A encompass 

49,522 acres in the center of the Refuge. Area B covers much of the Wilderness, a strip of land along the 

north boundary and in the southeast corner; it contains 36,200 acres. The Refuge unit containing the 

Headquarters and Visitor Center is closed to hunting.

When small game populations are high, hunters 

journey from throughout the Midwest to the Refuge. Hunting for Ruffed Grouse and American 

Woodcock is allowed in Area B. Snowshoe hare 

hunting is allowed in Area A after December 1 and 

throughout the season in Area B. All hunting is done 

in accordance with Michigan DNR regulations. 

Hunting for big game (white-tailed deer and 

black bear) on the Refuge is permitted during the 

state seasons, however there are added restrictions. 

The use of bait, dogs, snowmobiles or ATVs are prohibited. Area A is open for hunting deer during the 

“regular gun,” “muzzleloading,” and “late archery” 

seasons. Area B is open for all big game hunting 

seasons. These restrictions all but eliminate black 

bear hunting on the Refuge, because the state issues 

a limited number of bear tags and few hunters are 

willing to hunt without bait or dogs. 

The Refuge’s restrictions may have the opposite 

effect on deer hunting. While some may disagree 

with the restrictions, an overwhelming number of 

deer hunters surveyed in 2003 said they hunt at 

Seney NWR because it is a large area where they 

Environmental education program, Seney NWR. 

USFWS photo.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

56

can hunt traditionally, without the influence of baiting or the annoyance of ATVs. Despite the low 

hunter success, 9 percent compared to a state-wide 

average of 40 percent, many hunters have come 

back for decades. To facilitate deer hunting, Refuge 

roads are opened and camping is allowed west of the 

Driggs River.

Fishing

Seney NWR provides a 3.5-mile Fishing Loop 

and a universally accessible pier to facilitate fishing. 

Many people enjoy fishing for yellow perch and 

northern pike from the banks of Refuge impoundments. Others fish the Driggs River for brook trout 

or the Manistique River for walleye, smallmouth 

bass, and brown trout. Impoundment fishing is open 

from May 15 to September 30 in specified locations, 

and river fishing is allowed in accordance with state 

regulations. No boats or flotation devises are 

allowed on the impoundments and lead-free tackle 

must be used. Ice fishing is permitted on all Refuge 

impoundments, but this activity is not very popular. 

Each year, during the state’s “free fishing weekend,” Refuge staff, volunteers and the Seney Natural History Association (SNHA) host a children’s 

fishing day. This event began in 1990 and has 

become a tradition with many local families. Volunteers are stationed along the fishing loop with poles 

and bait to help children fish, there are fishing 

related activities in the Visitor Center and certificates are awarded for the largest yellow perch and 

northern pike in five age categories. The SNHA 

provides a free fish dinner to participants and their 

families and local vendors donate fishing-related 

items as door prizes.

Wildlife Observation

Seney NWR is known as a great place to watch 

wildlife and the Whitefish Point Unit is recognized 

internationally for its importance as a migratory 

bird stopover. Each year, visitors from around the 

world come to the Refuge to observe wildlife. The 

road network and impoundments provide excellent 

opportunities for people of all ages and abilities to 

observe wildlife. Others prefer to walk the Pine 

Ridge Nature Trail or hike and bike the backcountry roads in search of wildlife. If they are lucky they 

may glimpse a black bear, moose, or gray wolf. During the winter, visitors can don cross-country skis or 

snowshoes to track wildlife. 

Staff and volunteers working at the Visitor Center maintain a wildlife observation log and share 

that information with visitors. They also loan binoculars to visitors and help them locate observation 

decks with viewing scopes. Tours are given on 

Wednesday evenings that provide viewing opportunities along the back country roads and Yellow Rail 

tours offer a unique nighttime opportunity to see or 

hear a much sought-after species. 

Wildlife Photography

The network of roads and other facilities along 

the pools affords photographers of all skill levels 

excellent opportunities to photograph wildlife. Many 

beginners focus their lens on the charismatic Trumpeter Swan or Common Loon, as is evident by 

entries to the Annual Seney NWR Photo Contest. 

More seasoned photographers often venture beyond 

the auto tour route to capture images of plants, 

insects, and landscapes bathed in a wide spectrum 

of light conditions.

Interpretation

The Refuge Visitor Center, which is open 9 a.m. 

to 5 p.m. every day from May 15 to October 15, contains a variety of displays to interpret the natural 

resources of Seney NWR. It contains permanent 

exhibits such as a loon diorama, a gray wolf/coyote 

comparison, a “Who’s Calling” soundboard, a “lift 

the flap” mural, a track box, and a touch table. Creative temporary displays are used to inform the visiRed squirrel, Seney NWR. Photo by Igor Drobyshev.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

57

tors of what’s blooming, who is migrating, the use of 

fire management, the threats of invasive species and 

other Refuge management activities.

Refuge kiosks, which are presently being 

upgraded, provide minimal interpretive information on the Fish and Wildlife Service and specifically 

Seney NWR. The Marshland Wildlife Drive and 

Pine Ridge Nature Trail both have interpretive panels along their routes and the observation platforms 

were built with a focus on loons, eagles and swans. 

Brochures and posters also provide additional interpretive information. 

In addition to the wildlife tours that are provided 

every Wednesday evening, presentations, guided 

events, and other special events are held, including 

Children’s Fishing Day and Scout Day. Smaller 

interpretive events held throughout the season provide interpretive information on a variety of topics 

such as hunting and fishing, endangered species, 

backyard wildlife, migratory birds, fire management, invasive species management, wildflowers 

and wildlife films.

The Refuge’s interpretive program is heavily 

subsidized by funds from SNHA. Most of the Refuge’s events and interpretive activities are carried 

out by interns who receive monetary stipends from 

SNHA. The SNHA has also paid for the publication 

of brochures and signs as well as the construction of 

observation decks. A majority of their funds are 

derived from the sale of books and educational 

material sold in a small book store located in the Visitor Center.

The Refuge welcomes school groups and others 

interested in environmental education. School field 

trips are accommodated through tours, hikes, pond 

studies using a video microscope, games and career 

talks. On Scout Day the Refuge provides educational sessions for boy and girl scouts, grades K-6. 

Sessions include topics such as: bird banding, 

weather, water cycles, knots, orienteering, fire 

safety, tree identification, first aid, wildlife observation and dressing for outdoor activities. Seney NWR 

also provides outreach to university students by 

presenting tours and lectures. There is a growing 

demand for environmental education both on and off 

Refuge.

Volunteer and Friends Contributions

Seney NWR is fortunate to have an extraordinary volunteer program and a tremendous friends 

group. Without them there would be little substance 

to the Refuge’s visitor use program. Volunteers staff 

the Visitor Center 8 hours a day from May 15 

through October 15. They also help with public 

events, biological monitoring, maintenance projects 

and administrative duties. In all, volunteers contribute 8,000 to 10,000 hours annually to sustain and 

enhance Refuge programs. The SNHA is the Refuge’s friends group. Established in 1987, the SNHA 

has contributed more than $400,000 and funded 

approximately 80 internships to support Refuge 

programs. All of this has been done through membership dues and revenue generated from bookstore 

sales. 

Archaeological and Cultural 

Resources

Cultural resources management in the Service is 

the responsibility of the Regional Director and is 

not delegated for the Section 106 process when historic properties could be affected by Service undertakings, for issuing archeological permits, and for 

Indian tribal involvement. The Regional Historic 

Preservation Officer (RHPO) advises the Regional 

Director about procedures, compliance, and implementation of cultural resources laws. The Refuge 

Manager assists the RHPO by informing the RHPO 

about Service undertakings, by protecting archeological sites and historic properties on Service manChildren’s Fishing Day, Seney NWR. USFWS photo.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

58

aged and administered lands, by monitoring 

archeological investigations by contractors and permittees, and by reporting violations.

Law Enforcement

Enforcement of federal wildlife laws, as well as 

regulations specific to the Refuge System, is an integral part of Refuge operations. Law enforcement 

plays a crucial role in ensuring that natural and cultural resources are protected and that visitors 

encounter a safe environment. The Refuge currently has one dual-function officer who is commissioned to conduct law enforcement on federal 

property. In addition, the Zone Officer for Michigan 

and Ohio, currently stationed at Shiawassee NWR, 

and Special Agents conduct and assist with law 

enforcement efforts on the Refuge and surrounding 

lands. Federal law enforcement is a cooperative 

effort by many agencies in the region. Cooperative 

relationships and strategies have been developed 

with state conservation officers and the Schoolcraft 

County Sheriff ’s Department.

Wilderness Area and 

Wilderness Review

The Seney Wilderness Area was designated by 

Congress in 1970 and covers 25,150 acres (26 percent of the Refuge). The Strangmoor Bog National 

Natural Landmark is also located within the Seney 

Wilderness (Figure 12 on page 35). The majority of 

the wilderness is characterized by “string bog” 

topography, with moist organic soils and sand ridge 

islands (Heinselman 1965).

The variable nature of fire historically shaped the 

diverse Wilderness landscape (Drobyshev et al. In 

Press). Fluctuations in weather patterns, hydrology, 

topography, soils, fuels, and stand structure affected 

fire severity patterns. The 1976 Walsh Ditch Fire 

that burned most of the Wilderness demonstrated 

the variable nature of fire in that within its perimeter fire effects were patchy in nature. It left 

unburned 63 percent of the area, light surface 

burned 18 percent, moderately surface burned 7 

percent, hard surface burned 9 percent and organic 

soil burned 3 percent (Anderson 1982).

The Wilderness Area is managed under the provisions of the 1964 Wilderness Act as a unit of the 

National Wilderness Preservation System. That is, 

it is: “an area where the earth and its community of 

life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is 

a visitor who does not remain” (The Wilderness Act, 

September 3, 1964; (16 U.S.C. 1121))

As part of the CCP process, we reviewed other 

lands within the legislative boundaries of Seney 

NWR for wilderness suitability. No additional lands 

were found suitable for designation as defined by 

the Wilderness Act of 1964. Many of the lands 

acquired for the Refuge have been substantially 

altered by humans, both before and after the Refuge’s establishment, particularly from agriculture, 

roads, and flood control and hydrological infrastructure. Manmade facilities like dikes, ditches, water 

control structures, roads, and other facilities are 

spread throughout the Refuge, while artificial 

impoundments and manipulated wetlands are a 

large part of the landscape.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

59

Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: 

Tomorrow’s Vision

Introduction

The planning team developed goals and objectives for three management alternatives at Seney 

NWR. Cooperating agencies, conservation organizations, and Refuge staff all participated in this 

endeavor. The alternatives are:

# Alternative 1: Current Management Direction of Opportunistic Conservation, Restoration, and Preservation (No Action);

# Alternative 2: Management Gradient of Conservation Emphasis (Unit 1), to Conservation/Restoration Emphasis (Unit 2), to 

Restoration/Preservation Emphasis (Unit 3); 

to Wilderness Preservation (Unit 4)

# Alternative 3: Management to Emphasize 

Historic Patterns and Processes through 

Restoration and Wilderness Preservation 

(Unit 4).

The Environmental Assessment (Appendix A of 

the Draft CCP) describes and evaluates each alternative. The preferred alternative is Alternative 2 

(Habitat Management Gradient), and this forms the 

basis for the Seney NWR 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 Refuge staff. The goals are organized 

into the broad categories of wildlife, habitat, and 

people.

1. Goal 1: Wildlife – Preserve, conserve, and 

(where and when appropriate) restore the 

diversity of wildlife native to the Eastern 

Upper Peninsula of Michigan; with an emphasis on Region 3 Conservation Priority Species 

(see Refuge species lists in Appendices) Goals, 

Objectives and Strategies.

2. Goal 2: Habitat – Conserve the range of habitat conditions now found within the Refuge 

and (where and when possible) restore preEuropean conditions once characteristic of the 

Eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan. 

3. Goal 3: People – Provide visitors and the community with opportunities to experience quality, wildlife-dependent activities and to 

understand and appreciate the rich mosaic of 

wildlife and habitats found within the Eastern 

Upper Peninsula of Michigan. 

Seney NWR. USFWS photo.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

60

Goal 1: Wildlife

Preserve, conserve, and (where and when appropriate) 

restore the diversity of wildlife native to the Eastern Upper 

Peninsula of Michigan; with an emphasis on Region 3 Conservation Priority Species (see Refuge species lists in 

Appendices). 

Objective 1.1. Trust Resources

Implement a monitoring program to track the 

presence, abundance, population trends, and/or 

habitat associations of select Trust Resources, 

including but not limited to Region 3 Conservation Priority Species, habitats, communities and 

ecosystems (e.g., patterned fen in Strangmoor 

Bog National Natural Landmark). As the need 

arises, implement research to answer questions 

that have been raised regarding the management 

of Trust Resources.

Rationale: The heterogeneity of Seney NWR, its 

position in the landscape, and its remoteness all contribute to its role as a place for many U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Trust Resources, including Region 

3 Conservation Priority Species. Priority Species 

that currently inhabit Seney NWR include (but are 

not limited to) the gray wolf, Common Loon, Trumpeter Swan, American Bittern, Yellow Rail, Bald 

Eagle, Osprey, Northern Goshawk, Upland Sandpiper, Olive-sided Flycatcher, Black-throated Blue 

Warbler, Canada Warbler, Connecticut Warbler, Le 

Conte’s Sparrow, and Bobolink. Service Trust 

Resources also include unique habitat types, communities and ecosystems. An example of the latter is 

the Strangemoor Bog National Natural Landmark, 

which constitutes the largest patterned fen in the 

Lower 48 States. 

Strategies

1. Follow the monitoring plan.

2. Conduct annual review of monitoring plan to 

assess trends of Trust Resources and determine if there are any priorities for research or 

monitoring.

3. If a Trust Resource research issue has been 

identified, initiate research at the station 

level. If the issue goes beyond the boundary 

of the Refuge, take lead role in contacting 

other federal, state, university, and NGO 

partners and develop a broader scale 

research project to address those issues.

Objective 1.2. Wildlife, Habitat, Community and 

Ecosystem Research

Promote applied research aimed at answering 

wildlife, habitat, community, and ecosystembased questions without compromising wildlife, 

visitor, and Wilderness values. 

Rationale: Applied research is an important component of management at Seney NWR. It is used 

when questions arise that cannot be answered via 

past experience, discussions with other management professionals, or a review of the literature. 

Often research is used to develop or evaluate a management technique to insure it is having the desired 

effect. Currently a number of 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.

Strategies

1. Monitor and assess research annually, including access for researchers and the location, 

duration, and impacts of research.

2. Promote applied research and initiate dialogue with federal and state agencies, universities, and NGOs to answer management 

questions.

Pine marten. USFWS photo.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

61

3. Propose the development of Seney NWR as a 

Land Management Research and Demonstration Area. This would help the Refuge to 

become a leader in northern forest research, 

wetland ecology, and conservation and would 

enable the sharing of that knowledge with 

others to benefit both private and publiclyowned lands.

4. Seek external research funding through partnerships with others outside of the Service, 

where and when possible.

5. Communicate research findings with the 

broader conservation community through 

peer-reviewed and other publications, lectures, and other outreach activities.

6. Inform visitors of research findings and 

explain their importance for planning and 

management at Seney NWR.

7. Prioritize research on trust species, habitats, 

communities, and ecosystems of conservation 

priority.

8. Develop a better understanding as to how 

Refuge ecosystems function on a landscape 

and regional scale, including the effects of 

future climate change. 

Goal 2: Habitat

Conserve the range of habitat conditions now found within 

the Refuge and (where and when possible) restore to preEuropean conditions once characteristic of the Eastern 

Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

Objective 2.1. Scrub-Shrub

Reduce this habitat type by 3,419 acres (-12 percent) from 2007 levels (28,954 acres). Manage 

remaining 25,535 acres for the diversity of species present, including Region 3 Conservation 

Priority Species American Woodcock and Blackbilled Cuckoo.

Rationale: This dominant habitat type of the Refuge has been increasing due to the lack of ecological 

disturbance and the natural succession of the Open 

Wetland habitat type (see below). Plant species currently dominant in this habitat type include willow, 

bog birch, and tag alder. These species can form 

dense stands that alter hydrology and limit fire as 

the primary natural ecological disturbance. The rate 

and extent of the secondary succession, in this habitat type, has likely increased relative to pre-European times due to altered hydrology and lack of fire.

Historically, Seney NWR had large expanses of 

open fens that were dominated by Carex and other 

graminoid species. This is clearly evident from aerial photographs taken in the 1930s. However, many 

years of fire suppression and altered hydrology 

have resulted in the encroachment of trees and 

shrubs into these open fens and bogs, altering vegetation structure and community (White 1965, Middleton 2002, Brisson et al. 2006). Open fens are 

important habitat for Yellow Rail, LeConte’s Sparrow and Sedge Wren, which are considered priority 

species for Bird Conservation Area 20 (Partners In 

Flight) and are listed as species of special concern 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Region 3. 

There have been documented positive responses by 

rails to prescribed burning to reduce woody vegetation in the open fens from previous studies at Seney 

NWR (Burkman 1993) and from current research 

(Jane Austin pers. comm.). Figure 15 depicts future 

landcover conditions and Table 10 on page 63

describes the changes in vegetative cover with

implementation of the CCP.

Strategies

1. Modify annual burn plans to delineate target 

areas and target acres.

2. Add 122 acres by eliminating Spur Pools and 

Delta Creek Pool. 

Cattails, Seney NWR. USFWS photo.
62

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan Figure 15: Future Landcover, Seney NWR
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

63

3. In Unit 1, reduce acreage by 1,002 (north end 

of Unit). 

4. In Unit 2, reduce acreage by 886 (A-2 Pool 

area).

5. In Unit 3, reduce acreage by 1,653 (Marsh 

Creek Pool and C-3 Pool areas).

Objective 2.2. Open Wetlands

Increase this habitat type by 23 percent or 3,847 

acres from 2007 levels (16,617 acres). Manage the 

resulting 20,464 acres through prescribed fire for 

the diversity of species present, including Region 

3 Conservation Priority Species American Bittern, Le Conte’s Sparrow, Northern Harrier, 

Sedge Wren, and Yellow Rail.

Rationale: Sedge-bluejoint grasses and sphagnum-leatherleaf make up the greatest amount of 

acreage of this habitat type. These areas are dominated by 13 known species of the genus Carex. 

Included within these vast stands of sedges are 

smaller stands and or pockets of bluejoint grass, 

cattail, and leather leaf. Also occurring within these 

vast stands are sphagnum hummocks that protrude 

on the landscape. Continued active management is 

necessary to maintain this important habitat type 

and prevent it from succeeding into scrub shrub.

Strategies

1. Continue research that promotes the understanding of how this habitat type functions. 

Parameters to be measured should include 

hydrology (surface and subsurface water 

flow), soils, and vegetation response to management actions.

2. Use prescribed and natural fire, where and 

when appropriate (3,541 acres).

3. In Unit 2, add 306 acres in T-2 East Pool.

4. Continue monitoring Region 3 Conservation 

Priority Species response before, during and 

after management actions.

Objective 2.3. Mixed Forest – Uplands

Maintain 2007 acreage (11,396 acres), diversity of 

seral stages, and (where and when possible) 

restore historic composition and structure for the 

diversity of species present, including Region 3 

Conservation Priority Species American Woodcock, Black-throated Blue Warbler, Canada Warbler, Connecticut Warbler, gray wolf, and 

Northern Goshawk.

Table 10: Changes in Vegetative Cover Types, Seney NWR

Habitat Type Current Management 

Direction (Acres)

Future Goal Change

Acres Percent Acres Percent

Scrub-Shrub 28,954 25,534 27 -3,551 -12

Open Wetlands 16,616 20,464 22 3,848 23

Mixed Forest – Uplands 11,396 11,396 12 0 0

Coniferous Forest – Uplands 8,857 8,952 9 95 1

Mixed Forest – Lowlands 8,221 8,221 9 0 0

Coniferous Forest – Lowlands 7,825 7,825 8 0 0

Open Water (Pools, Rivers, etc.) 5,104 4,676 5 -428 -8

Deciduous Forest – Uplands 4,372 4,600 5 232 5

Deciduous Forest – Lowlands 2,515 2,515 3 0 0

Upland Old Fields and Openland 1,302 979 1 -327 -25

Total 95,162 95,162
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

64

Rationale: This broad habitat type contains a 

wide range of forest conditions, from those composed primarily of early successional species such as 

aspen and jack pine to forest dominated by sugar 

maple, yellow birch, white pine, and eastern hemlock. Much of this habitat type, both on the Refuge 

and throughout the Eastern Upper Peninsula, has 

undergone considerable alteration relative to preEuropean times. Its composition has been shifted to 

more early successional species, with a relatively 

uniform age structure. This is markedly different 

than benchmark conditions, which contain greater 

tree species and structural diversity. Future management should focus on promoting ecological integrity of these stands by promoting compositional and 

structural diversity, and (in most instances) move 

succession forward to emulate later seral stage 

characteristics. 

Strategies

1. Understand the natural disturbance regime 

inherent to the forest types within this broad 

habitat and work within the confines of seral 

pathways dictated by soil, climate, and 

hydrology.

2. Promote stands dominated by early seral 

stages of mixed forest at the Refuge periphery.

3. Promote stands dominated of later seral 

stages of mixed forest in the Refuge interior.

4. In managed stands, promote increased compositional and structural heterogeneity, 

including large-diameter coarse woody debris 

and snags. 

5. Use management techniques that emulate 

natural ecological disturbances (e.g., single 

tree mortality for multi-aged stands, stand 

(cohort) replacement for even-aged stands).

6. Use commercial and non-commercial mechanical treatments, where and when appropriate.

7. Use prescribed and natural fire, where and 

when appropriate.

8. Ensure white-tailed deer populations do not 

negatively affect the habitat.

9. Manage invasive species aggressively (see 

below).

 Objective 2.4. Coniferous Forest – Uplands

Increase acreage from 2007 levels (8,857 acres) 

by 95 acres to 8,952 acres (+1 percent), maintain 

diversity of seral stages, and restore historic 

composition and structure when and where possible. Region 3 Conservation Priority Species using 

this habitat type on the Refuge include Cape May 

Warbler, gray wolf, Northern Flicker, Olive-sided 

Flycatcher, and Whip-poor-will. 

Rationale: Of the upland habitat types on the 

Refuge, upland coniferous forest has undergone the 

greatest alteration and has the greatest potential 

for restoration. Pre-European settlement, most forest stands in this habitat type consisted primarily of 

long lived red and white pine, with a minor component of jack pine, aspen, and other overstory species. Exploitive and utilitarian forest management 

practices and subsequent wildfires fed by logging 

slash converted thousands of acres to second growth 

aspen and jack pine in the region, including the Refuge. By some estimates, less than 1 percent of the 

area formerly covered by the late successional stage 

of this habitat type still exsists in the Eastern 

Upper Peninsula. Fortunately, the Refuge has 

remote pine islands that were never harvested and 

these serve as benchmarks for restoration of this 

habitat type. Per the station’s Biological Review, 

future management should focus on promoting ecological integrity of these stands and (where and 

when possible) restore composition and structure to 

benchmark conditions. 

American beech with black bear claw marks, Seney NWR. 

USFWS photo.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

65

Strategies

1. Understand and emulate the natural disturbance regime inherent to the forest types 

within this broad habitat type and work 

within the confines of seral pathways dictated 

by soil, climate, and hydrology.

2. Increase 95 acres from West Walsh Farm and 

East Walsh Farm.

3. Promote stands dominated by early seral 

stages at the Refuge periphery.

4. Promote stands dominated by later seral 

stages in the Refuge interior.

5. In managed stands, promote increased compositional and structural heterogeneity, 

including large-diameter coarse woody debris 

and snags.

6. Use management techniques that emulate 

natural ecological disturbances (e.g., single 

tree mortality for multi-aged stands, stand 

(cohort) replacement for even-aged stands in 

other instances).

7. Use commercial and non-commercial mechanical treatments, where and when appropriate.

8. Use prescribed and natural fire, where and 

when appropriate.

9. Ensure white-tailed deer populations do not 

negatively affect the habitat. 

10. Manage invasive species aggressively (see 

below).

Objective 2.5. Mixed Forest – Lowlands

Maintain 2007 acreage (8,221), diversity of seral 

stages, and (where and when possible) restore 

historic composition and structure for the diversity of species present, including Region 3 Conservation Priority Species American Woodcock, 

Cape May Warbler, Canada Warbler, gray wolf, 

and Olive-sided Flycatcher.

Rationale: It is unknown how altered this habitat 

type is at the Refuge relative to its historic condition. Since Refuge establishment, relatively little 

active management has occurred in this habitat 

type. Future management should focus on assessing 

the condition of this habitat type and promote ecological integrity of these stands.

Strategies

1. Understand and emulate the natural disturbance regime inherent to the forest types 

within this broad habitat type and work 

within the confines of seral pathways dictated 

by soil, climate, and hydrology.

2. In managed stands, promote increased compositional and structural heterogeneity, 

including large-diameter coarse woody debris 

and snags.

3. Use management techniques that emulate 

natural ecological disturbances (e.g., single 

tree mortality in some instances and stand 

replacement in other instances).

4. Use commercial and non-commercial mechanical treatments, where and when appropriate.

5. Use prescribed and natural fire, where and 

when appropriate.

6. Ensure white-tailed deer populations do not 

negatively affect the habitat.

7. Manage invasive species aggressively (see 

below).

Objective 2.6. Coniferous Forest-Lowlands

Maintain 2007 acreage (7,825 acres), diversity of 

seral stages, and (where and when possible) 

restore historic composition and structure for the 

diversity of species present, including Region 3 

priorities Cape May Warbler, gray wolf, Northern 

Flicker, and Olive-sided Flycatcher.

Rationale: Relative to pre-European benchmark

conditions, this habitat type is thought to be relatively unaltered at the Refuge. Other than the cutting of white cedar trees for boundary posts, 

relatively little active forest management has 

occurred in this habitat type. Changes, however, to 

the hydrology at the Refuge have likely adversely 

impacted this habitat type in some areas. Tamarack, 

for instance, is likely less of a component of some 

forest stands due to hydrologic alterations. Restoring the hydrology of some areas may help restore 

this species. Future management should focus on 

promoting ecological integrity of these stands.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

66

Strategies

1. Understand and emulate the natural disturbance regime inherent to the forest types 

within this broad habitat type and work 

within the confines of seral pathways dictated 

by soil, climate, and hydrology.

2. In managed stands, promote increased compositional and structural heterogeneity, 

including large-diameter coarse woody debris 

and snags.

3. Use management techniques that emulate 

natural ecological disturbances (e.g., single 

tree mortality in some instances and stand 

replacement in other instances).

4. Use commercial and non-commercial mechanical treatments, where and when appropriate.

5. Use prescribed and natural fire, where and 

when appropriate.

6. Restore hydrology, where adversely 

impacted.

7. Ensure white-tailed deer populations do not 

negatively affect the habitat.

8. Manage invasive species aggressively (see 

below).

Objective 2.7. Open Water

Reduce acreage from 2007 level (5,104 acres) by 

428 acres (-8 percent), and manage remaining 

4,676 acres for the diversity of species present, 

including Region 3 Conservation Priority Species 

Bald Eagle, Common Loon, Trumpeter Swan, 

and Wood Duck.

Rationale: Except for beaver ponds, open water 

was not very prominent on the landscape prior to 

Refuge establishment. According to Refuge notes, 

there was only one named body of water on the Refuge, which was located near M-2 Pool. The majority 

of area in this habitat type is mainly confined to the 

Refuge’s 27 pools, of which 21 have water control 

capability. Other sources of open water consist of 

beaver ponds and the creeks, ditches and rivers that 

fill the pools. Submerged aquatic vegetation and 

associated invertebrates provide essential food for 

waterbirds. Submergents are present throughout 

the marsh but reach their greatest densities in open 

bays free of emergents. The Refuge has documented over 35 species of submergents, including 16 

species of pondweed. The pools should continue to 

be managed for the Region 3 Conservation Priority 

Species listed above. Any pool that is not contributing to the life history strategies of the Region 3 Conservation Priority Species list or inhibits the natural 

function and processes of wetlands on a landscape 

scale will be considered for removal.

Strategies

1. Continue managing the pools in accordance 

with the 1993 Long Range Marsh and Water 

Management Plan until CCP has been implemented. 

2. Upon CCP implementation, develop new 

Marsh and Water Management Plan with new 

goals and objectives that support the CCP 

and mission of the Refuge.

3. Continue yearly monitoring of waterbird use 

of the pools.

4. Continue monitoring fisheries of the pools 

every 3 to 5 years.

5. Develop fish population data (species, age 

class, etc) for each pool.

6. Continue monitoring aquatic vegetation every 

5 years.

7. Remove the dikes at Spur Pools, Delta Creek 

and T-2 (East). Conduct appropriate biotic 

and abiotic monitoiring, before, during and 

after these projects.

8. Maintain all remaining water control infrastructure.

Objective 2.8. Deciduous Forest – Uplands

Increase deciduous forest acreage from 2007 levels (4,372 acres) by 232 acres (+5 percent) and 

manage the resulting 4,600 acres to maintain the 

diversity of seral stages and (where and when 

possible) restore historic composition and structure for the diversity of species present, including 

Region 3 Conservation Priority Species American Woodcock, Black-throated Blue Warbler, 

gray wolf, and Northern Goshawk.

Rationale: Throughout the Eastern Upper Peninsula and at the Refuge, this habitat type (with a 

small conifer component) is considerably altered 

relative to pre-European benchmark conditions. 

Now, more so in times past, this broad habitat type 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

67

is characterized by forests in earlier seral stages 

and with a considerable aspen component. Late successional stages of this habitat type have in particular undergone considerable alteration relative to 

pre-European benchmark conditions, both within 

the Eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan and at the 

Refuge. In most late successional stands, composition has been shifted from a mixed forest community to one primarily dominated by shade-tolerant 

maple species. Fewer individuals of species such as 

yellow birch (not to mention the minor conifer component of white pine, eastern hemlock and white 

spruce) are now found. At the Refuge, this habitat 

type is found in scattered stands, usually on the 

most nutrient-rich soils. In many of these forest 

stands, prior logging for exploitive and utilitarian 

reasons has degraded stand composition and structure relative to pre-European benchmark conditions, and Beech Bark Disease has further 

exacerbated these problems by causing mortality in 

one of the few native hard mast-producing species at 

the Refuge (American beech). Future management 

should focus on promoting ecological integrity of 

these stands by emulating gap dynamics, promoting 

composition and structural diversity, and (in most 

instances) move succession forward to emulate later 

seral stage characteristics. 

Strategies

1. Understand the natural disturbance regime 

inherent to the forest types within this broad 

habitat type and work within the confines of 

seral pathways dictated by soil, climate, and 

hydrology.

2. Eliminate the following old fields, either passively by allowing forest succession to occur 

or promote forest succession by plantings: 

Smith Field (22 acres), Sub-Headquarters 

Field (64 acres), Conlon Farm (39 acres), Chicago Farm (97 acres), and miscellaneous forest openings (10 acres).

3. In managed stands, promote increased compositional and structural heterogeneity, 

including large-diameter coarse woody debris 

and snags.

4. Promote early seral stages dominated by 

aspen at the Refuge perimeter.

5. Stands with late seral characteristics should

be conserved wherever they exist, and 

restored in the interior of the Refuge.

6. Enhance representation of more uncommon 

species such as yellow birch and eastern hemlock, and conserve as much American beech 

as possible. 

7. Use management techniques that emulate 

natural ecological disturbances (e.g., single 

tree mortality in late seral stands).

8. Use commercial and non-commercial mechanical treatments, where and when appropriate.

9. Ensure white-tailed deer populations do not 

negatively affect the habitat.

10. Manage invasive species aggressively (see 

below).

11. Continue to monitor spread of beech bark disease and treatment effectiveness.

Objective 2.9. Deciduous Forest-Lowlands

Maintain acreage at 2007 levels (2,515 acres), 

diversity of seral stages, and (where and when 

possible) restore historic composition and structure for the diversity of species present for the 

diversity of species present, including Region 3 

Conservation Priority Species American Woodcock, Black-throated Blue Warbler, gray wolf, and 

Northern Goshawk.

Rationale: This habitat type has seen relatively 

little management in the past at the Refuge and is 

not considered drastically altered relative to preEuropean benchmark conditions. Future management should focus on gap dynamics and promoting 

composition and structural diversity while moving 

succession forward in most areas. 

No active management is called for in this habitat 

type.

Lady’s slipper, Seney NWR. USFWS photo.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

68

Strategies

1. Understand and emulate the natural disturbance regime and work within the confines of 

seral pathways dictated by soil, climate, and 

hydrology.

2. Ensure white-tailed deer populations do not 

negatively affect the habitat.

3. Manage invasive species aggressively (see 

below).

Objective 2.10. Upland Old Fields and Openland

Reduce openland habitat from 2007 levels (1,302 

acres) by 327 acres (-25 percent) and manage the 

remaining 979 acres for the diversity of species 

present, including Region 3 Conservation Priority Species American Woodcock, Bobolink, 

Upland Sandpiper, and Northern Harrier.

Rationale: This habitat type consists of primarily 

anthropogenic habitats created prior to the Refuge 

establishment in 1935. Many non-native grass species, such as Kentucky bluegrass and several brome 

species, characterize these areas. Other than Diversion Farm (which because of its size and location 

offers habitat for a number of species of Regional 

Conservation Priority), most fields should be either 

allowed to naturally succeed to forests or be actively 

managed to do so. 

Strategies

1. Conserve Diversion Farm using a combination of tools, including prescribed fire and 

mowing.

2. Elsewhere, restore fields to upland deciduous 

forest stands either passively through natural 

secondary succession or through active management that could include planting of seedlings (see above). 

3. Ensure white-tailed deer populations do not 

negatively affect the habitat 

4. Manage invasive species aggressively (see 

below).

Objective 2.11. Invasive Species Management

By 2020, reduce the area infested with target 

invasive plant species (e.g., glossy buckthorn, tartarian honeysuckle, multi-flora rose) by 50 percent from the documented 2007 level and 

eliminate new infestations of these and other 

highly invasive species as they occur.

Rationale: Many exotic plants and pathogens 

have been identified at the Refuge, with many being 

invasive. Moreover, more invasive species are 

expected to arrive in the area in the future. 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. Document the locations and sizes of targeted 

populations.

2. Use chemical, mechanical, prescribed and natural fire (where appropriate) as means to 

manage infestations in cases where biological 

control techniques have not been developed.

3. Monitor the infestations and effectiveness of 

management measures.

4. When available, use biological control as a

preferred strategy.

Severe forest burn site, Seney NWR. USFWS photo.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

69

Goal 3: People

Provide visitors and the community with opportunities to 

experience quality, wildlife-dependent activities and to 

understand and appreciate the rich mosaic of wildlife and 

habitats found within the Eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

Objective 3.1: Hunting

Provide 200 days of quality upland hunting experiences per year with fewer than 10 complaints 

annually.

Rationale: To evaluate improvements across the 

entire visitor services program and summarize 

progress, the Refuge will use the evaluation standards of RAPP (Refuge Annual Performance Plan). 

RAPP measures act as a general indicator of how 

successful management is in satisfying the criteria 

for quality of recreation use as described in the Service Manual Chapter 605 FW1.6. RAPP identifies 11 

criteria for evaluating the quality of the priority 

wildlife-dependent recreational activities. By applying the 11 criteria to each use, a quality ranking factor can be assigned. The Refuge program for the 

specific use is considered “good” if you meet eight to 

11 of the criteria; “fair” if you meet five to seven; 

and “poor” if you meet zero to four. One example of 

a criterion is “promotes safety of participants, other 

visitors and facilities.” Some improvements are 

clearly needed and inferred from the criteria in the 

Service manual.

These improvements are identified in the following paragraphs in the strategies and under the 

strategies of the wildlife dependent activities listed 

in the next objectives. As the visitor services program of the Refuge matures and more details are 

specified in a visitor services plan, the Refuge will 

be able to move to more direct and specific measures of recreation quality. These direct measures 

will include a survey of visitors.

Strategies

1. Continue annual small game hunting opportunities (grouse, woodcock, hare) within framework of MDNR and Refuge restrictions.

2. Continue annual firearms and archery whitetailed deer and black bear hunting opportunities (within framework of Michigan DNR and 

Refuge restrictions).

3. Continue to provide camping opportunities 

and open roads during white-tailed deer firearms season. 

4. Eliminate toxic shot for all species except 

white-tailed deer and black bear.

5. Conduct counts to determine numbers of 

Ruffed Grouse, American Woodcock and 

snowshoe hare hunters.

6. Develop operational definition of success and 

measures for hunting through a survey of 

hunter satisfaction. 

Objective 3.2: Fishing

Provide 125 days of quality fishing experiences 

per year with fewer than 10 complaints annually.

Strategies

1. Maintain an accessible fishing platform.

2. Maintain roads for fishing route.

3. Maintain fish line disposal containers.

4. Continue the Children’s Fishing Day event.

5. Provide a fishing platform at the Wigwam 

access area.

6. Conduct a count to determine the number of 

anglers.

7. Develop an operational definition of success 

and measures for fishing through a survey of 

angler satisfaction. 

Refuge exhibit at a local art festival, Seney NWR. 

USFWS photo.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

70

Objective 3.3: Wildlife Observation and 

Photography

Provide year-round opportunities for at least 

25,000 visitors annually to observe and photograph wildlife and habitat.

Strategies

1. Continue annual amateur photo contest.

2. Maintain 7-mile Marshland Wildlife Drive.

3. Maintain 1.4-mile hiking trail.

4. Maintain 10 miles of groomed ski trails.

5. Maintain six viewing platforms with scopes 

and interpretive panels.

6. Provide viewing platform at Wigwams access 

area.

7. Provide guided photo opportunities and/or 

workshops.

8. Increase facilities (i.e. trails, observation platforms) at Whitefish Point.

9. Develop operational definition of success and 

measures for wildlife observation and photography through a survey of visitor satisfaction. 

Objective 3.4: Environmental Education and 

Interpretation

Annually provide no fewer than 400 quality environmental education experiences and 700 quality 

interpretive experiences per year to promote an 

understanding of the rich mosaic of wildlife and 

habitats found within the Eastern Upper Peninsula.

Strategies

1. Provide facilities and programs for area 

schools, universities, community groups, and 

other Refuge visitors, with a message that 

emphasizes the importance of habitat diversity, natural patterns and processes, and wildlife management.

2. Increase use of education trunks.

3. Continue to provide interpretive programs, 

events, festivals, tours for Refuge visitors, 

with a message that emphasizes habitat diversity, natural patterns and processes, and wildlife management.

4. Conduct at least two special events, 12-24 auto 

tours, and 12-24 programs on-site to interpret 

the Refuge, its habitat diversity, natural patterns and processes, and wildlife management.

5. Maintain interpretive signs/panels on nature

trail and viewing platforms.

6. Provide and maintain 14 kiosks that orient 

visitors and help interpret habitats, wildlife, 

management, and regulations (Figure 16).

7. Increase programming and use of facilities for 

environmental education activities for area 

schools, universities, community groups, and 

other Refuge visitors, with a curriculumbased message that emphasizes habitat diversity, natural patterns and processes, and wildlife management.

8. Develop an operational definition of success 

and measures for environmental education. 

9. Encourage partnerships with local schools, 

community groups and surrounding agencies.

10. Provide teacher workshops with partner 

schools.

11. Increase environmental education and interpretation presence at Whitefish Point.

12. Develop operational definition of success and 

measures for interpretation through a survey 

of visitor satisfaction.

13. Update the Refuge orientation slide show 

using new DVD technology.

14. Hire a full-time visitor services manager.

15. Replace the Refuge Visitor Center and office 

(see Chapter 5).

16. Improve parking site to accommodate trailers 

used by Refuge volunteers.

Objective 3.5: Protection of Cultural Resources

Ensure archeological and cultural values are 

described, identified, and taken into consideration prior to implementing undertakings. (The 

intent of this objective is to cover Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 7(e)(2) of the FWS Improvement Act.)
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

71

Rationale: The historic and pre-historic artifacts 

on the Refuge are limited and irreplaceable national 

treasures. Many of the sites have been identified but 

not researched. 

Strategies

1. Initiate a Cultural Resources Management 

Plan within 3 years of CCP approval that 

incorporates all existing surveys and investigations and identifies future needs. 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.) 

2. Prepare a museum property Scope of Collections Statement for the Refuge. (The intent of 

this statement is to meet the requirements of 

the DOI Departmental Manual, Part 411.)

3. Develop an oral cultural history to preserve 

the “community memory” about the area.

4. Explore the idea of converting the CCC cabin 

into an historic/cultural museum.

Objective 3.6: Cultural Resources Appreciation

Seventy percent of visitors will understand and 

appreciate the cultural history of the Refuge.

Strategy

1. Incorporate cultural history messages into 

programs, exhibits and other media with an 

emphasis on use of the Refuge landscape 

throughout time.

Objective 3.7: Whitefish Point Unit

Within 5 years of CCP completion, implement the 

Service’s provisions of the 2002 Human Use/ Natural Resource Management Plan for Whitefish 

Point.

Rationale: As mentioned in Chapter 1, Seney 

NWR manages 33 acres of the former Coast Guard 

Station at Whitefish Point. Currently there are no 

permanent buildings or designated trails on the 

property and the USFWS does not administer any 

programs on site. However, Human Use Plan obligates the USFWS to provide some minor facilities 

at the site. As of 2008, no funds have been designated to implement these provisions.

The Refuge will work with a Joint Committee, 

which consists of Michigan Audubon Society, Great 

Lakes Shipwreck Historical Society and the Service, to implement provisions of the Human Use 

Natural Resource Management Plan for Whitefish 

Point. Specifically the Refuge will seek to implement 

the following actions on its lands to protect the fragile habitat at the Point for the wildlife that depend 

upon it.

Strategies

1. Designate trails to allow public access while 

protecting environmentally sensitive areas. 

One trail will lead from the parking lot to the 

tip of the Point. The second will run along an 

old cobble road in a southeasterly direction.

2. Close the southeast beach from April to 

August to promote nesting of Piping Plovers.

3. Work with the GLSHS to route visitors to the 

beach via their boardwalk and revegetate the 

cut-through from the parking lot to the beach.

4. Hire a Refuge Manager trainee with a major 

responsibility for on-site work, mitigation 

approvals and coordination with partners.

Educational display, Seney NWR. USFWS photo.
72

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan Figure 16: Future Visitor Facilities on Seney NWR
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

73

5. Occupy a portion of a Second Keeper’s Quarters if the building is re-constructed. The 

building will also be used by other partners to 

the Whitefish Point plan.

3.8 Other Recreational Access

Provide additional access opportunities upon 

request on a case-by-case basis if compatible with 

Refuge purposes.

Rationale: Occasionally, the Refuge receives 

requests for access to portions of the refuge for 

events or activities. The access requests may not be 

solely for a wildlife-dependent activity. Two activities, horseback riding and snowmobile riding (on the 

Refuge perimeter) were mentioned during public 

scoping for the CCP. 

Horseback Riding: Several members of the community have requested assess to Refuge roads for 

horseback riding. They desire an area to ride where 

disturbance by motor vehicles in minimal. This is 

particularly important for young riders or young 

horses. Currently the nearest dedicated horseback 

trail is 50 miles away. While horseback riding is not 

a wildlife dependent activity, it could be permitted 

on a limited basis provided riders are willing to 

clean up manure after each ride. The concern is 

that horses may deposit seeds of invasive species on 

the Refuge. Permission would be granted under a 

Special Use Permit and riders would be restricted to 

designated roads.

Snowmobiling: The Seney Snowmobile Club and 

Michigan Snowmobile Association are planning to 

construct a snowmobile trail along State Highway 

77, which is the Refuge’s eastern boundary. Their 

intent is to connect the towns of Seney and Germfask to existing trails south of the Refuge. The 

existing trail bypasses the town of Germfask and its 

safety is often compromised by winter logging activities. Most of the trail would be in the highway rightof-way, however there are several areas where the 

trail may infringe on Refuge property. Given that 

snowmobiling occurs in the winter when most wildlife have migrated from the Refuge and proposed 

trail will be along a state highway on the edge of the 

Refuge, consideration of the plan should be given 

when a proposal is completed. A concern is the 

potential use of the proposed trail by ATV traffic 

during the non-winter months when wildlife is abundant.

Strategy

1. Consider recreational access requests on a 

case-by-case basis.
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

74

Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

New and Existing Projects

This CCP outlines an ambitious course of action 

for the future management of Seney NWR. The 

ability to enhance wildlife habitats on the Refuge 

and to maintain existing and develop additional 

quality public use facilities will require a significant 

commitment of staff and funding from the Service. 

The Refuge 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.

Seney NWR Operating Needs Projects

Replenish Visitor Services/Environmental Education Capacity and Capability – Hire a full-time 

Visitor Services Manager (Park Ranger). Due to 

Regional Workforce Planning considerations, the 

position at Seney NWR has been vacant since early 

in 2004. With this position filled, the Refuge would:

# Be able to conduct teacher workshops again

# Increase environmental education activities/

presentations in area schools and at the Refuge, especially during the winter months 

when currently there is not any visitor services staff on duty. 

# Increase outreach activities. 

# Present more focused activities related to 

Service events such as Wildlife Refuge 

Week, Migratory Bird Day, etc. 

A full-time Visitor Services Specialist would allow 

us 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.” Estimated Cost – $80,000. Strategy 14 

under Objective 3.4. 

Replace Refuge Visitor Center and Office – The 

current Refuge Visitor Center was built in 1963. 

Current exhibits and displays are becoming outdated and the auditorium is a simple room with 

basic features. Technology for interactive displays, 

multi-media presentation, and exhibits has significantly evolved over the past 40 years. It would not 

be feasible to update the existing facility to modern 

standards. The current office, exhibit space, and 

book store space are all used to the maximum and 

there is no space to expand. A new building could be 

constructed completely to Federal accessibility 

standards and include the latest in energy conservation capabilities. In addition, the current parking 

space for the Visitor Center is limited and is not conducive for parking and maneuverability of modern 

RVs. 

Seney NWR. USFWS photo.
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

75

The current Refuge Office was originally built in 

1935 as a garage and then was converted into an 

office building. The building has been renovated 

several times over the years. Office space is used to 

maximum capacity, especially during the summer 

months with the arrival of seasonal staff/interns. 

The Refuge does not have the space to store official 

records and display library materials. A new building would be constructed to meet Federal accessibility standards and include the latest in energy 

conservation capabilities.

A joint Visitor Center/Office building would be 

estimated at $4 million to $7 million, dependng on 

the chosen design. Strategy 15 under Objective 3.4.

Increase Law Enforcement Capability – Hire a 

full-time law enforcement officer. Currently the station only has one dual function officer. A full-time 

officer would be able to do more regular and intensive law enforcement on the Refuge throughout the 

year. The Refuge is responsible for managing and 

monitoring 30 different easements throughout the 

Upper Peninsula and northern Lower Peninsula; 

three remote island refuge units – one each in Lake 

Superior, Lake Michigan and Lake Huron; Whitefish Point, a remote unit of the Refuge approximately 70 miles from Seney NWR’s Headquarters; 

and finally the Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area, which is composed of 125 different parcels in eight different counties in the northern 

Lower Peninsula. A full-time officer would be able to 

build cooperative relationships with neighboring 

enforcement agencies and enhance enforcement of 

state regulations on the Refuge. Estimated Cost - 

$100,000.

Whitefish Point, Implement Human Use/Natural Resource Management Plan for Whitefish Point 

and Increase Public Use Opportunities – Hire a 

full-time Refuge Manager trainee with a major 

responsibility to work with partners in implementing the Human Use/Natural Resource Management 

Plan. A portion of the old U.S. Coast Guard Station 

was transferred to the Great Lakes Shipwreck Historical Society, Michigan Audubon Society/Whitefish Point Bird Observatory and U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service/Seney National Wildlife Refuge. 

Regular Refuge staff presence is needed at Whitefish Point to build relationships with the other partners and to cooperatively work to implement the 

plan. This person would be able to acquire grant 

money or other funding to implement the plan. This 

person would be tasked with developing kiosks, new 

trails or other items to better educate and inform 

the general public about the natural resources at 

Whitefish Point. Estimated cost $70,000. Strategy 8 

under Objective 3.3, Strategy 11 under Objective 

3.4, and Strategy 5 under Objective 3.7.

Maintain Refuge Infrastructure – Seney NWR 

was established in 1935. Most of the water control 

structures, bridges, dikes, and canals for Refuge 

impoundments were built in the first 10 years of the 

Refuge’s existence. The Refuge actively manages 21 

impoundments that are very important in management for Common Loons, Trumpeter Swans, other 

waterfowl and waterbirds, plus they are a major 

facet of the Refuge public use program. The Refuge 

should be on a schedule to replace or rehabilitate 

one to two water control structures/bridges every 5 

to 10 years. In a top 10 priority list for deferred 

maintenance projects for the time-frame 2010 to 

2014, replacing the water control structure at Upper 

Goose Pen is the number 1 priority; replacing the C2 to M-2 water control structure is the number 2 priority; and replacing the J to H bridge is the fifth priority. 

All Refuge dikes/dams have issues with trees and 

brush growing on the slopes and erosion problems 

from wave action and beaver activity. Some dikes 

are showing bare spots from vegetation dying out, 

plus they are all showing wear from 60 to 70 years of 

use. In addition to annual maintenance, the Refuge 

should be on a schedule to every 5 years complete 

major rehabilitation work on at least one dike/dam. 

In a top 10 priority list for deferred maintenance 

projects for the time-frame 2010-2014, rehabilitating the dike at B-1 Pool is listed as our fourth priorResearcher with eaglet, Seney NWR. USFWS photo.
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

76

ity and the dike at H-1 Pool is listed as the ninth 

priority. Estimated costs for water control structures/bridges would range from $10,000 to $740,000. 

Estimated costs for rehabilitating a dike/dam would 

range from $10,000 to $1,000,000. Strategy 8 under 

Objective 2.7. 

Continue and Increase Efforts Concerning Invasive Species Control – For several years, Seney 

NWR has been conducting an active glossy buckthorn (invasive species) control program including 

mechanical cutting of the shrub, prescribed burning 

and application of herbicide. Annually, approximately 20 acres per year are treated. In addition to 

glossy buckthorn, invasive populations of multiflora 

rose and tartarian honeysuckle are also treated. 

This project would hire a career seasonal bio-tech to 

assist the Refuge forester in continuing the control 

program on glossy buckthorn. In addition this person would inventory and document extent of other 

invasive populations and begin to treat these other 

invasives. Estimated Cost $35,000. Strategies 1-4 

under Objective 2.11.

Maintain Refuge Roads – The Refuge maintains 

over 90 miles of roads, a majority of the roads are 

gravel but a significant portion are earthen roads. 

The 7.1-mile Auto Tour Loop and 4.3-mile Fishing 

Loop are both gravel. The Refuge maintains less 

than 2 miles of paved roads encompassing our 

entrance road and short roads to administrative 

sites. The entrance road and the Auto Tour and 

Fishing Loop, by far receive the most extensive 

public use. Estimated cost to re-pave the entrance 

road and associated parking lots at visitor center, 

office and shop would be $436,000. Strategy 2 under 

Objective 3.3.

Investigate Feasibility of Utilizing Solar and/or 

Wind Power to Power River Road Quarters – The 

Refuge River Road quarters is housing for summer 

interns and researches. The building is shut down 

and remains vacant in the winter. The building is 

located in an open field area and should be ideal for 

receiving and generating solar power and possibly 

wind power. No research has been conducted to date 

to determine the feasibility or expense of this project. (No specific strategy.)

Increase Capacity for Volunteers – Improve 

capabilities for housing trailers at River Road (location of pads, sewer and electrical hookups, phone 

hookups, etc.) Estimated Cost $10,000. Strategy 16 

under Objective 3.4.

Establish a Refuge Museum in the Historic Log 

Cabin – The Historic Log Cabin was built by the 

CCC in 1940 from timber harvested at the Refuge 

and is a superb example of local workmanship. It 

has served as a lodging facility for visiting dignitaries and was said to be a favorite of J. Clark Salyer’s. 

The Refuge has numerous artifacts, photographs 

and documents form its early years that would be 

suitable for display in a museum. One bedroom 

would remain to provide accommodations for an 

“Artist in Residence” program or individuals conducting historical research. No research has been 

conducted to date to determine the feasibility or 

expenses of this project. Strategy 4 under Objective 

3.5.

Future Staffing Requirements

Implementing the visions set forth in this CCP 

will require additions to the organizational structure 

of Seney NWR. Existing staff will direct their time 

and energy in somewhat new directions and new 

staff members will be added to assist in these 

efforts. The organizational chart (Figure 17) shows 

the existing Refuge staff as of Fiscal Year 2008. One 

full-time equivalent (FTE) law enforcement officer 

is needed to fully implement this plan by Fiscal Year 

2023. 

Step-down Management Plans

Step-down management plans describe specific 

actions that support the accomplishment of Refuge 

objectives. The management plans identified in 

Table 11 on page 78 will be reviewed, revised, or 

developed as necessary to achieve the results anticipated in this CCP. Please note that several existing 

management plans will be incorporated into the new 

Habitat Management Plan. 

Wilderness Review

We reviewed Refuge lands outside of the designated wilderness area for suitability as additional 

wilderness. This evaluation is presented within 

Chapter 3. No additional lands were found suitable 

for designation as wilderness as defined in the Wilderness Act of 1964.
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

77

Figure 17: Current Staffing, Seney NWR
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

78

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 Seney 

NWR and evaluate current Refuge activities in light 

of this plan. The team will review all aspects of Refuge management, including direction, accomplishments and funding. The goals and objectives 

presented in this CCP will provide the baseline from 

which this field station will be evaluated.

Plan Review and Revision

The CCP for Seney NWR 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.

Table 11: Step-down Management Plan Schedule, Seney NWR

Step-down Management Plan Plan Completed/ 

Updated

Anticipated 

Revision

Visitor Services Plan N/A 2012

Hunting Plan 1989 2013

Law Enforcement Plan 2006 2009

Furbearer Management &Trapping Plans 1989

2013

Seney

Habitat

Management

Plan

Marsh & Water Management Plan1 1993

Forest Management Plan 1991

Wildlife Inventory Plan 1989

Fisheries Management Plan 1989

Fire Management Plan 2008 2013

Wilderness Management Plan N/A 2012

Cultural Resources Management Plan 1976 2016

Safety Plan 2007 2012

1. Annual Management Plans are written for the Water Management Plan.
Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

79

Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact 

Finding ofNo Significant Impact 

Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

for the Seney National Wildlife Refuge, Michigan 

An Environmental Assessment (EA) has beell prepared to identify management strategies to meet 

the conservation goals of the Seney Natiollal Wildlife Refuge. The EA examined the 

environmental cOllsequences that each management alternative could have on the quality of the 

physical, biological, and human ellvirolllllent, as required by the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA). The EA evaluated three alternatives for the future nlanagement of Seney 

NWR. 

The alternative selected for implementation on the refuge is Alternative 2. TIle preferred 

alternative would encourage a future trend toward wildlife habitats that are native to the area and 

maintained, where feasible, by natural processes. The preferred altenlative also includes 

increased opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observatioll and photography, 

envirollffiental education and interpretation. Alternative 2 would segment the Refuge into fOllr 

general units alld apply a management strategy to each unit. The units would follow a general 

gradient ofnlallagement from low intensity (wilderness) to higher manipulation (managed 

impoundments and visitor use). Some 11igh and low intensity management actions would occur in 

all units. Wildlife needs always receive priority when in conflict with visitor services. 

For reasons presented above and below, and based 011 an evaluation of the information contained 

in the Environmental Assessment, we have determined that the action of adopting Alternative 2 

as the management altenlative for Seney NWR is not a major federal action which would 

significantly affect the quality of the human environment, within the mealling of Section 102 

(2)(c) ofthe National Ellvironmental Policy Act of 1969. 

Additional Reasons: 

1. Future management actions will have a nelltral or positive impact on the local economy. 

2. This action will not have an adverse impact on threatened or endangered species. 

Supporting References: 

Environmental Assessment 

Compr ive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B: Glossary

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

83

Appendix B: Glossary

Appendix B: Glossary

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

85

Appendix B: Glossary

Alternative

A set of objectives and strategies needed to 

achieve refuge goals and the desired future condition.

Biological Diversity

The variety of life forms and its processes, including the variety of living organisms, the genetic 

differences among them, and the communities 

and ecosystems in which they occur.

Compatible Use

A wildlife-dependent recreational use, or any 

other use on a refuge that will not materially 

interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of 

the mission of the Service or the purposes of the 

refuge.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

A document that describes the desired future 

conditions of the refuge, and specifies management actions to achieve refuge goals and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Conservation

Active management to maintain existing conditions, more or less.

Cultural Resources

“Those parts of the physical environment -- natural and built -- that have cultural value to some 

kind of sociocultural group ... [and] those nonmaterial 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.

Ecosystem

A dynamic and interrelated complex of plant and 

animal communities and their associated non-living environment.

Ecosystem Approach

A strategy or plan to protect and restore the natural function, structure, and species composition 

of an ecosystem, recognizing that all components 

are interrelated.

Ecosystem Management

Management of an ecosystem that includes all 

ecological, social and economic components that 

make up the whole of the system.

Endangered Species

Any species of plant or animal defined through 

the Endangered Species Act as being in danger 

of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and published in the Federal 

Register.

Environmental Assessment

A systematic analysis to determine if proposed 

actions would result in a significant effect on the 

quality of the environment.

Extirpation

The local extinction of a species that is no longer 

found in a locality or country, but exists elsewhere in the world.

Goals

Descriptive statements of desired future conditions.

High Quality Recreation

Wildlife-dependent recreational programs that 

meet criteria defined in Section 1.6 of 605 FW 1.

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.

Issue

Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision. For example, a resource management problem, concern, a threat to natural 

resources, a conflict in uses, or in the presence of 

an undesirable resource condition.

Landbirds

All birds that inhabit non-wetland habitats.
Appendix B: Glossary

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

86

National Wildlife Refuge System

All lands, waters, and interests therein administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as 

wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges, wildlife management areas, waterfowl production areas, and 

other areas for the protection and conservation of 

fish, wildlife and plant resources.

Objectives

A concise statement of what we want to achieve. 

The statement is specific, measurable, achievable, results oriented, and time-fixed.

Preferred Alternative

The Service's selected alternative identified in 

the environmental assessment and fully developed in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Preservation

Passive management that allows patterns to 

develop without intervention.

Restoration

Active management to return patterns or processes to a measured, pre-European condition.

Scoping

A process for determining the scope of issues to 

be addressed by a comprehensive conservation 

plan and for identifying the significant issues. 

Involved in the scoping process are federal, state 

and local agencies; private organizations; and 

individuals.

Species

A distinctive kind of plant or animal having distinguishable characteristics, and that can interbreed and produce young. A category of 

biological classification.

Strategies

A general approach or specific actions to achieve 

objectives.

Threatened Species

Those plant or animal species likely to become 

endangered species throughout all of or a significant portion of their range within the foreseeable 

future. A plant or animal identified and defined in 

accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species 

Act and published in the Federal Register.

Trust Resources

Trust resources are those resources for which the 

Service has been given specific responsibilities 

under federal law. These include migratory birds, 

interjurisdictional fishes (fish species that may 

cross state lines), federally listed threatened or 

endangered species, some marine mammals, and 

lands owned by the Service.

Undertaking:

“A project, activity, or program funded in whole 

or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction 

of a Federal agency, including those carried out 

by or on behalf of a Federal agency; those carried 

out with Federal financial assistance; those 

requiring a Federal permit, license or 

approval...,” i.e., all Federal actions.

Vegetation

Plants in general, or the sum total of the plant life 

in an area.

Vegetation Type

A category of land based on potential or existing 

dominant plant species of a particular area.

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. 

Watershed

The entire land area that collects and drains 

water into a stream or stream system.

Wetland

Areas such as lakes, marshes, and streams that 

are inundated by surface or ground water for a 

long enough period of time each year to support, 

and that do support under natural conditions, 

plants and animals that require saturated or seasonally saturated soils.

Wildlife-dependent Recreational Use

A use of a refuge that involves hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation, as identified 

in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.

Wildlife Diversity

A measure of the number of wildlife species in an 

area.
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

87

Appendix C: Species Lists

Birds of Seney NWR and Nearby Lands / page 89

Bird Species of Whitefish Point / page 104

Seney NWR 2004 Butterfly List / page 113

Herptofauna List, Seney NWR / page 118

List of Fish Species Found on Seney NWR / page 120

Mammal Species Found on Seney NWR / page 123

Seney NWR Herbarium / page 130

Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

89

Birds of Seney NWR and Nearby Lands 

Common Name Scientific Name

Abundance by Species that are 

Possible, Probable, or Confirmed 

Breeders in Schoolcraft County

Special 

Designation

Preferred 

Habitat(s)1

Abundant Common Uncommon

OccassionalRare-Vagrant 

NonBreeders

Common Loon Gavia immer 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities, 

Regional Forester 

Sensitive, 

Michigan Special 

Animal 

OWA

Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus 3 OWA

Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena 3 OWA

Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis 3 OWA

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps 3 OWA

American White Pelican Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos

3 OWA

Double-crested 

Cormorant

Phalacrocorax auritus 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities

OWA

American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities, 

Michigan Special 

Animal

OWE

Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities, 

Regional Forester 

Sensitive, 

Michigan Special 

Animal 

OWE

Black-crowned Night 

Heron

Nycticorax nycticorax 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities, 

Regional Forester 

Sensitive, 

Michigan Special 

Animal 

OWE

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias 3 OWA, OWE

Green Heron Butorides virescens 3 OWA, OWE

Great Egret Ardea alba 3 OWA, OWE
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

90

Mute Swan Cygnus olor 3 OWA

Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator 3 3 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities, 

Regional Forester 

Sensitive, 

Michigan Special 

Animal 

OWA

Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus 3 OWA

Snow Goose Chen caerulescens 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities

OWA

Canada Goose Branta canadensis 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities

OWA

American Black Duck Anas rubripes 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities

OWA

Canvasback Aythya valisineria 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities

OWA

Redhead Aythya americana 3 OWA

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities

OWA

Black Scoter Melanitta nigra 3 OWA

White-winged Scoter Melanitta nigra 3 OWA

Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis 3 OWA

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola 3 OWA

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula 3 OWA

Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis 3 OWA

Wood Duck Aix sponsa 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities

OWA, OWE

Gadwall Anas strepera 3 OWA, OWE

Birds of Seney NWR and Nearby Lands (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name

Abundance by Species that are 

Possible, Probable, or Confirmed 

Breeders in Schoolcraft County

Special 

Designation

Preferred 

Habitat(s)1

Abundant Common Uncommon

OccassionalRare-Vagrant 

NonBreeders
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

91

American Widgeon Anas americana 3 OWA, OWE

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities

OWA, OWE

Blue-winged Teal Anas discors 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities

OWA, OWE

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca 3 OWA, OWE

Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata 3 OWA, OWE

Northern Pintail Anas acuta 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities

OWA, OWE

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris 3 OWA, OWE

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus 3 OWA, OWE

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator 3 OWA, OWE

Common Merganser Mergus merganser 3 OWA, OWE

Osprey Pandion haliaetus 3 Michigan Special 

Animal

OWA

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities, 

Michigan Special 

Animal

OWA

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos 3 OWE, GRA, 

HAY, OLD

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura 3 GRA, HAY, 

OLD

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities, 

Regional Forester 

Sensitive, 

Michigan Special 

Animal 

OWE, GRA, 

HAY

Merlin Falco columbarius 3 Michigan Special 

Animal

DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Birds of Seney NWR and Nearby Lands (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name

Abundance by Species that are 

Possible, Probable, or Confirmed 

Breeders in Schoolcraft County

Special 

Designation

Preferred 

Habitat(s)1

Abundant Common Uncommon

OccassionalRare-Vagrant 

NonBreeders
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

92

American Kestrel Falco sparverius 3 GRA, HAY, 

OLD

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis 3 GRA, HAY, 

OLD

Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus 3 OWE, GRA, 

HAY, OLD

Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus 3 DCF, DMF, 

WCF, WMF

Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities, 

Regional Forester 

Sensitive, 

Michigan Special 

Animal 

WMF, WCF

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii 3 Michigan Special 

Animal

DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities, 

Regional Forester 

Sensitive, 

Michigan Special 

Animal 

DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities, 

Regional Forester 

Sensitive, 

Michigan Special 

Animal 

OWE, GRA, 

HAY, OLD

Spruce Grouse Falcipennis canadensis 3 Regional Forester 

Sensitive, 

Michigan Special 

Animal

DCF, WCF

Birds of Seney NWR and Nearby Lands (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name

Abundance by Species that are 

Possible, Probable, or Confirmed 

Breeders in Schoolcraft County

Special 

Designation

Preferred 

Habitat(s)1

Abundant Common Uncommon

OccassionalRare-Vagrant 

NonBreeders
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

93

Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Sharp-tailed Grouse Tympanuchus 

phasianellus

3 Regional Forester 

Sensitive, 

Michigan Special 

Animal

GRA, HAY, 

OLD

Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus 3 GRA, HAY, 

OLD

American Coot Fulica americana 3 OWA, OWE

Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis 3 OWE, GRA, 

HAY, OLD

Yellow Rail Coturnicops 

noveboracensis

3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities, 

Regional Forester 

Sensitive, 

Michigan Special 

Animal 

OWE

Virginia Rail Rallus limicola 3 OWE

Sora Porzana carolina 3 OWE

Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities, 

Regional Forester 

Sensitive

GRA, HAY, 

OLD

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus 3 GRA, HAY, 

OLD

American Woodcock Scolopax minor 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities

SUP

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities

SHO

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes 3 SHO

Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria 3 SHO

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia 3 SHO

Birds of Seney NWR and Nearby Lands (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name

Abundance by Species that are 

Possible, Probable, or Confirmed 

Breeders in Schoolcraft County

Special 

Designation

Preferred 

Habitat(s)1

Abundant Common Uncommon

OccassionalRare-Vagrant 

NonBreeders
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

94

Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla 3 SHO

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla 3 SHO

White-rumped 

Sandpiper

Calidris fuscicollis 3

SHO

Baird's Sandpiper Calidris bairdii 3 SHO

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos 3 SHO

Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago 3 OWE, SHO

Dunlin Calidris alpina 3 SHO

Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola 3 OWE

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius 

semipalmatus

3 OWE

Bonaparte's Gull Larus philadelphia 3 OWA

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis 3 OWA

Herring Gull Larus argentatus 3 OWA

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia 3 Regional Forester 

Sensitive, 

Michigan Special 

Animal

OWA

Common Tern Sterna hirundo 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities, 

Regional Forester 

Sensitive, 

Michigan Special 

Animal 

OWA

Black Tern Chlidonias niger 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities, 

Regional Forester 

Sensitive, 

Michigan Special 

Animal 

OWA, OWE

Rock Dove Columba livia 3 RES

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura 3 RES

Birds of Seney NWR and Nearby Lands (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name

Abundance by Species that are 

Possible, Probable, or Confirmed 

Breeders in Schoolcraft County

Special 

Designation

Preferred 

Habitat(s)1

Abundant Common Uncommon

OccassionalRare-Vagrant 

NonBreeders
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

95

White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis 3 DCF, DMF

Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus 

erythropthalmus

3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities

SWE, SUP

Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Barred Owl Strix varia 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Long-eared Owl Asio otus 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities, 

Michigan Special 

Animal

DCF, DMF, 

WCF, WMF

Snowy Owl Nyctea scandiaca 3 OWE, GRA, 

HAY, OLD

Northern Hawk Owl Surnia ulula 3 OWE, GRA, 

HAY, OLD

Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa 3 Regional Forester 

Sensitive

OWE, GRA, 

HAY, OLD

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus 3 Regional Forester 

Sensitive, 

Michigan Special 

Animal

OWE, GRA, 

HAY, OLD

Boreal Owl Aegolius funereus 3 Regional Forester 

Sensitive

WDF

Northern Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus 3 WDF, WMF

Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica 3 RES

Common Nighthawk Caprimulgus vociferus 3 DCF, GRA, 

HAY, OLD

Whip-poor-will Troglodytes aedon 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities

DCF, GRA, 

HAY, OLD

Ruby-throated 

Hummingbird

Archilochus colubris 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF, 

RES

Birds of Seney NWR and Nearby Lands (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name

Abundance by Species that are 

Possible, Probable, or Confirmed 

Breeders in Schoolcraft County

Special 

Designation

Preferred 

Habitat(s)1

Abundant Common Uncommon

OccassionalRare-Vagrant 

NonBreeders
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

96

Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon 3 OWA, OWE

Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Black-backed 

Woodpecker

Picoides arcticus 3 Regional Forester 

Sensitive, 

Michigan Special 

Animal

DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities

DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes 

erythrocephalus

3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities

GRA, HAY, 

OLD

Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus 3 GRA, HAY, 

OLD

Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities, 

Regional Forester 

Sensitive

DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Empidonax flaviventris 3 Regional Forester 

Sensitive

DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Birds of Seney NWR and Nearby Lands (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name

Abundance by Species that are 

Possible, Probable, or Confirmed 

Breeders in Schoolcraft County

Special 

Designation

Preferred 

Habitat(s)1

Abundant Common Uncommon

OccassionalRare-Vagrant 

NonBreeders
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

97

Great Creasted 

Flycatcher

Myiarchus crinitus 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus 3 GRA, HAY, 

OLD

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii 3 SWE, SUP

Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe 3 GRAY, HAY, 

OLD, RES

Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor 3 GRA, HAY, 

OLD

Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Philadelphia Vireo Vireo philadelphicus 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons 3 DCF, DMF

White-eyed Vireo Vireo griseus 3 SUP

Gray Jay Perisoreus canadensis 3 WCF, WMF

Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata 3 WCF, WMF

American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 3 GRAY, HAY, 

OLD, RES

Common Raven Corvus corax 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris 3 GRA, HAY, 

OLD

Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor 3 GRA, HAY, 

OLD

Northern Rough-winged 

Swallow

Stelgidopteryx 

serripennis

3 GRA, HAY, 

OLD

Bank Swallow Riparia riparia 3 GRA, HAY, 

RES, OLD

Birds of Seney NWR and Nearby Lands (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name

Abundance by Species that are 

Possible, Probable, or Confirmed 

Breeders in Schoolcraft County

Special 

Designation

Preferred 

Habitat(s)1

Abundant Common Uncommon

OccassionalRare-Vagrant 

NonBreeders
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

98

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica 3 GRA, HAY, 

RES, OLD

Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon 

pyrrhonota

3 GRA, HAY, 

RES, OLD

Purple Martin Progne subis 3 RES

Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapilla 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Boreal Chickadee Poecile hudsonica 3 WCF, WMF

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis 3 DCF, DMF, 

WCF, WMF

White-breasted 

Nuthatch

Sitta carolinensis 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Brown Creeper Certhia americana 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

House Wren Euphagus cyanocephalus 3 DCF, GRA, 

HAY, OLD

Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris 3 Michigan Special 

Animal

OWE, SWE

Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities

SWE

Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes 3 WCF, WMF

Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis 3 DCF, GRA, 

HAY, RES, 

OLD

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula 3 WCF

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa 3 WCF

American Robin Turdus migratorius 3 DCF, DMF, 

WCF, WMF, 

RES

Veery Catharus fuscescens 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Birds of Seney NWR and Nearby Lands (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name

Abundance by Species that are 

Possible, Probable, or Confirmed 

Breeders in Schoolcraft County

Special 

Designation

Preferred 

Habitat(s)1

Abundant Common Uncommon

OccassionalRare-Vagrant 

NonBreeders
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

99

Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities

MMF, DCF

Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus 3 DCF, DMF

Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus 3 Regional Forester 

Sensitive

WCF, WMF

Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis 3 SWE, SUP

Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos 3 GRA, HAY, 

RES, OLD

Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum 3 DCF, SUP

European Starling Sturnus vulgaris 3 RES

American Pipit Anthus rubescens 3

Bohemian Waxwing Bombycilla garrulus 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum 3

Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Black-throated Green 

Warbler

Dendroica virens 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica fusca 3 MCF, MMF

Birds of Seney NWR and Nearby Lands (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name

Abundance by Species that are 

Possible, Probable, or Confirmed 

Breeders in Schoolcraft County

Special 

Designation

Preferred 

Habitat(s)1

Abundant Common Uncommon

OccassionalRare-Vagrant 

NonBreeders
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

100

Black-and-White 

Warbler

Mniotilta varia 3 MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF

Black-throated Blue 

Warbler

Dendroica caerulescens 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities, 

Regional Forester 

Sensitive

MDF

Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities

MDF, WMF, 

MMF

Kirtland's Warbler Dendroica kirtlandii 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities, 

Michigan Special 

Animal

DCF

Palm Warbler Dendroica palmarum 3 DCF

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia 3 OWE, SWE

Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica 3 SUP

Connecticut Warbler Oporornis agilis 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities, 

Regional Forester 

Sensitive

SUP

Mourning Warbler Oporornis philadelphia 3 SUP

Wilson's Warbler Wilsonia pusilla 3 SWE

Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrina 3 WCF, WMF

Northern Parula Parula americana 3 WCF, WMF

Cape May Warbler Dendroica tigrina 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities

WCF, WMF

Bay-breasted Warbler Dendroica castanea 3 Regional Forester 

Sensitive

WCF, WMF

Birds of Seney NWR and Nearby Lands (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name

Abundance by Species that are 

Possible, Probable, or Confirmed 

Breeders in Schoolcraft County

Special 

Designation

Preferred 

Habitat(s)1

Abundant Common Uncommon

OccassionalRare-Vagrant 

NonBreeders
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

101

Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities, 

Regional Forester 

Sensitive, 

Michigan Special 

Animal 

WMF, WCF

Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities

SUP

Orange-crowned 

Warbler

Vermivora celata 3

Blackpoll Warbler Dendroica striata 3

American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla 3 SUP, SWE

Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas 3 SWE

Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis 3 WCF, WMF, 

SWE

Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea 3 MDF, MMF

Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis 3 RES

Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis 3 RES

Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea 3 SUP, MMF

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis 3 DCF, WCF

Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus 3 SUP

Savannah Sparrow Passerculus 

sandwichensis

3 GRA, HAY, 

OLD, PAS

Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities

GRA, HAY, 

OLD, SUP

Le Conte's Sparrow Ammodramus leconteii 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities, 

Regional Forester 

Sensitive

OWE

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca 3 RES

Harris' Sparrow Zonotrichia querula 3 RES

Birds of Seney NWR and Nearby Lands (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name

Abundance by Species that are 

Possible, Probable, or Confirmed 

Breeders in Schoolcraft County

Special 

Designation

Preferred 

Habitat(s)1

Abundant Common Uncommon

OccassionalRare-Vagrant 

NonBreeders
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

102

White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys 3 RES

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina 3 SU P, D C F, 

OLD

American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea 3 RES

Clay-colored Sparrow Spizella pallida 3 SU P, D C F, 

OLD

Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus 3 SU P, D C F, 

OLD

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia 3 SUP, S WE, 

OLD

Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana 3 SWE, OWE

Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii 3 WCF

Brewer's Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus 3 DCF, GRA, 

HAY, OLD, 

PAS

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus 3 OWE

Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus 

xanthocephalus

3 OWE

Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula 3 OWE

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater 3 RES

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities, 

Regional Forester 

Sensitive

GRA, HAY, 

OLD, PAS

Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities

GRA, HAY, 

OLD, PAS

Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta 3 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities, 

Michigan Special 

Animal

GRA, HAY, 

OLD, PAS

Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula 3 RES

White-winged Crossbill Loxia leucoptera 3 DCF, DMF, 

WCF, WMF

Birds of Seney NWR and Nearby Lands (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name

Abundance by Species that are 

Possible, Probable, or Confirmed 

Breeders in Schoolcraft County

Special 

Designation

Preferred 

Habitat(s)1

Abundant Common Uncommon

OccassionalRare-Vagrant 

NonBreeders
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

103

Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra 3 DCF, DMF, 

WCF, WMF

Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF, 

RES

American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis 3 SUP, RES

Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus 3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF, 

RES

Common Redpoll Carduelis flammea 3

Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes 

vespertinus

3 DCF, DMF, 

MCF, MMF, 

WCF, WMF, 

RES

Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus 3 MDF, MMF

Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator 3 WCF, WMF, 

RES

1

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

Birds of Seney NWR and Nearby Lands (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name

Abundance by Species that are 

Possible, Probable, or Confirmed 

Breeders in Schoolcraft County

Special 

Designation

Preferred 

Habitat(s)1

Abundant Common Uncommon

OccassionalRare-Vagrant 

NonBreeders
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

104

Birds of Whitefish Point 

Common Name Genus: Species

Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus

Common Merganser Mergus merganser

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos

American Black Duck Anas rubripes

Gadwall Anas strepera

American Wigeon Anas americana

Blue-winged Teal Anas discors

Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata

Northern Pintail Anas acuta

Wood Duck Aix sponsa

Redhead Aythya americana

Canvasback Aythya valisineria

Greater Scaup Aythya marila

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola

Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis

King Eider Somateria spectabilis

Black Scoter Melanitta nigra

White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca

Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata

Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons

Canada Goose Branta canadensis

Mute Swan Cygnus olor

Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica

Ruby-throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris

Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

105

Wilson’s Snipe Gallinago delicata

Ancient Murrelet Synthliboramphus antiquus

Pomarine Jaeger Stercorarius pomarinus

Parasitic Jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus

Long-tailed Jaeger Stercorarius longicaudus

Black-legged Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla

Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus

Iceland Gull Larus glaucoides

Thayer's Gull Larus thayeri

Great Black-backed Gull Larus marinus

Lesser Black-backed Gull Larus fuscus

Herring Gull Larus argentatus

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis

Laughing Gull Larus atricilla

Franklin's Gull Larus pipixcan

Bonaparte's Gull Larus philadelphia

Little Gull Larus minutus

Sabine's Gull Xema sabini

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia

Forster's Tern Sterna forsteri

Common Tern Sterna hirundo

Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea

Black Tern Chlidonias niger

Red Phalarope Phalaropus fulicarius

Wilson's Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor

American Woodcock Scolopax minor

Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus

Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus

Stilt Sandpiper Calidris himantopus

Red Knot Calidris canutus

Purple Sandpiper Calidris maritima

Birds of Whitefish Point (Continued)

Common Name Genus: Species
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

106

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos

White-rumped Sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis

Baird's Sandpiper Calidris bairdii

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla

Dunlin Calidris alpina

Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla

Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri

Sanderling Calidris alba

Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa

Hudsonian Godwit Limosa haemastica

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes

Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria

Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus

Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda

Buff-breasted Sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus

Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus

Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres

American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias

Great Egret Ardea alba

Snowy Egret Egretta thula

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis

Green Heron Butorides virescens

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura

Rock Dove (Feral Pigeon) Columba (Patagioenas) livia

Birds of Whitefish Point (Continued)

Common Name Genus: Species
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

107

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura

White-winged Dove Zenaida asiatica

Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus

Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus

Mississippi Kite Ictinia mississippiensis

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus

Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis

Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus

Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni

Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus

Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus

Merlin Falco columbarius

Osprey Pandion haliaetus

Spruce Grouse Falcipennis canadensis

Sharp-tailed Grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus

Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus

Common Loon Gavia immer

Pacific Loon Gavia pacifica

Red-throated Loon Gavia stellata

Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis

Virginia Rail Rallus limicola

Sora Porzana carolina

Pink-sided, Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis

Birds of Whitefish Point (Continued)

Common Name Genus: Species
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

108

Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata

Scissor-tailed Flycatcher Tyrannus forficatus

Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus

Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis

Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus

Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe

Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi

Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Empidonax flaviventris

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii

Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum

Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus

Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris

Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata

Common Raven Corvus corax

American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos

European Starling Sturnus vulgaris

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater

Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus

Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna

Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta

Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius

Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus

Brewer's Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus

Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula

Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus

Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator

Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus

House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus

Birds of Whitefish Point (Continued)

Common Name Genus: Species
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

109

Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra

White-winged Crossbill Loxia leucoptera

Hoary Redpoll Carduelis hornemanni

Common Redpoll Carduelis flammea

American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis

Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus

Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis

Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus

Smith's Longspur Calcarius pictus

Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus

Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum

Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow Ammodramus nelsoni

Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus

Harris's Sparrow Zonotrichia querula

White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys

White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis

American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina

Clay-colored Sparrow Spizella pallida

Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia

Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii

Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca

Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus

Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis

Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus

Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea

Dickcissel Spiza americana

Lark Bunting Calamospiza melanocorys

Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana

Birds of Whitefish Point (Continued)

Common Name Genus: Species
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

110

Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea

Purple Martin Progne subis

Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica

Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor

Bank Swallow Riparia riparia

Bohemian Waxwing Bombycilla garrulus

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus

Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus

Philadelphia Vireo Vireo philadelphicus

Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus

Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons

Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius

White-eyed Vireo Vireo griseus

Black-and-White Warbler Mniotilta varia

Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus

Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera

Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata

Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrina

Northern Parula Parula americana

Cape May Warbler Dendroica tigrina

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia

Black-throated Blue Warbler Dendroica caerulescens

Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia

Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea

Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica

Bay-breasted Warbler Dendroica castanea

Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica fusca

Black-throated Green Warbler Dendroica virens

Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus

Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor

Birds of Whitefish Point (Continued)

Common Name Genus: Species
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

111

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla

Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis

Mourning Warbler Oporornis philadelphia

Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas

Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens

Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis

American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla

House Sparrow Passer domesticus

American Pipit Anthus rubescens

Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos

Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis

Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum

House Wren Troglodytes aedon

Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes

Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis

Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris

Brown Creeper Certhia americana

White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis

Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus

Boreal Chickadee Poecile hudsonica

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea

Townsend's Solitaire Myadestes townsendi

Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina

Veery Catharus fuscescens

Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus

Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus

Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus

American Robin Turdus migratorius

Birds of Whitefish Point (Continued)

Common Name Genus: Species
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

112

Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis

Mountain Bluebird Sialia currucoides

Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus

American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus

Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus

Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens

Black-backed Woodpecker Picoides arcticus

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius

Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus

Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus

Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus

Western Grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis

Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena

Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus

Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps

Long-eared Owl Asio otus

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus

Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa

Boreal Owl Aegolius funereus

Northern Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus

Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus

Snowy Owl Bubo scandiacus

Northern Hawk Owl Surnia ulula

Birds of Whitefish Point (Continued)

Common Name Genus: Species
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

113

Seney NWR 2004 Butterfly List 

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat

Swallowtails

Black Swallowtail Papilio polyxenes asterius Old Fields, vacent rural and urban lots, 

framland. 

Canadian Tiger Swallowtail Papilio canadensis Pine barrens, aspen forest openings and 

edges, roadsides and stream margins.

Whites & Suphurs

Mustard White Pieris napi Floodplain forests and other shrubby 

wetlands and roadsides

West Virginia White Pieris virginiensis Usually ristricted to Northern Hardowwed 

forests and edges.

Cabbage White Pieris rapae Gardens, roadsides, old fields and 

disturbed areas.

Olympia Marble Euchloe olympia Open woodlands, oak-pine barrens on 

sandy soils.

Clouded Sulpher Colias philodice Godart Open areas, clover and alfalfa fields, 

roadsides and disturbed areas.

Orange Sulphur Colias eurytheme Open areas, alfalfa and red clover fields, 

right-of-way and wet areas

Pink-edged Sulphur Colias interior Blueberry bogs and oak-pine barrens, 

recently burned pine barrens with 

abundence of blueberry, along trails and 

roadsides. 

Little Sulphur Eurena lisa Fields, roadsides and gardens, also Great 

Lakes coastal areas

Harvester, Coppers, Hairstreaks, Blues

Harvester Feniseca tarquinius Deciduous forests, flodd plains and alderborderd stream banks.

American Copper Lycaena phlaeas Old fields and disturbed areas, including 

weedy residental lots.

Bronze Copper Lycaena hyllus Wet Meadows, marshes and stream 

borders with sedges and wild iris

Bog Copper Lycaena epixanthe 

michiganensis

Restricted to sphagnum-heath acid bogs

Dorcas Copper Lycaena dorcas Wet meadows, fens, seeps, inland lake 

margins and some Great Lakes coastal 

areas. 

Pupleish Copper Lycaena helloides Roadsides, fields, disturbed areas, sedge 

marshes, and other wetlands.

Coral Hairstreak Satyrium titus Open areas, forest edges, roadsides and old 

fields beginnin to revert to shrub-forest
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

114

Banded Hairstreak Satyrium calanus falacer Forest openings and edges, old fields and 

roadsides

Stiped Hairstreak Satyrium liparops strigosum Oak-pine Barrens

Brown Elfin Incisalia augustinus Sphagnum-heath bogs and pine-barrens in 

Northern counties

Hoary Elfin Incisalia polia Oak-pine barrens, along great lakes dunes.

Henry's Elfin Incisalia henrici Open oak-pine barrens, forest openings/

edges and swamp borders

Eastern Pine Elfin Incisalia niphon clarki Open pine barrens, forest edges and 

roadsides.

Western Pine Elfin Incisalia eryphon Coniferous forest edges and openings, 

along roads and trails bordered by white 

pine.

Early Hairstreak Erora laetus Openings, edges and sun dappled trails in 

Northern hardwoods containing beech

Eastern Tailed Blue Everes comyntas Prairies, old fields, pastures and disturbed 

areas with a variety of legumes.

Northen Spring Azure Celastina lucia Forest openings and edges and along 

forest trails.

Northern Blue Lycaeides idas nabokovi Openings in pine barrens and on rock 

outcroppings.

Greenish Blue Plebejus saepiolus Old fields, forest openings, and roadsides

Brushfoots

Variegated Fritillary Euptoieta claudia Meadows, disturbed areas, pastures, 

streamsides and bogs. 

Krautwurm's Fritillary Speyeria cybele cybele Forest openings and edges, forest roads 

and trails, and old fields. 

Aphrodite Fritillary Speyeria aphrodite Oak-pine barrens, upland fields, prairies 

and roadsides.

Atlantis Fritillary Speyeria atlantis Canadian zone forest openings and edges, 

old fields and roadsides.

Bog Fritillary Boloria eunomia dawsoni Restricted to open sphagnum-heath bogs

Bog Silver-bordered 

Fritillary

Boloria selene atrocostalis Bogs and adjacent trials and roadsides. 

Meadow Fritillary Boloria bellona Moist meadows, pastures, old fields and 

clearing being invaded by violets

Frigga Gritillary Boloria frigga saga Sphagnum-heath bogs with dwarf birch

Silvery Checkerspot Chlosyne nycteis Floodplain forest openings, meadows, 

marshes and roadsides

Seney NWR 2004 Butterfly List (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

115

Harris' Checkerspot Chlosyne harrisii Marsh edges, moist pastures, meadows, 

wet ditches and roadsides.

Northern Pearl Crescent Phyciodes selenis Forest openings and edges, old fields, 

streamsides and roadsides.

Tawny Crescent Phyciodes batesii Meadows, pastures, old fields, stream 

banks and roadsides. 

Baltimore Checkerspot Euphydryas phaeton Brushy swamps, marshes, wet meadows 

and oak-pine barrens.

Question Mark Polygonia interrogationis Forest openings, edges and trails, 

roadsides and streamsides.

Common Merchant Polygonia comma Forest openings, edges and trails, swamps 

and streamsides.

Satyr Anglewing Polygonia satyrus Forest openings, edges, along streams, 

pine barrens and roadsides.

Green Comma Polygonia faunus Usually in coniferous forests and trails in 

Canadian Zones.

Hoary Comma Polygonia gracilis Boreal forest openings and edges, stream 

margins and trails.

Gray Comma Polygonia progne Forests, swamps, pine barrens and trails.

Compton Tortoise Shell Nymphalis vau-album j-album Forest opeings, edges and trails.

Mourning Cloak Nymphalis antiopa Forest openings, edges, swamp, meadows, 

stream margins and roadsides.

Milbert's Tortoise Shell Nymphalis milberti Swampa nd marsh edges, meadows, wet 

pastures, stream margins and roadside 

ditches.

American Painted Lady Vanessa virginienisis Old fields, praries, meadows, disturbed 

areas and roadsides.

Painted Lady Vanessa Cardui Old fields, disturbed areas, pastures and 

meadows.

Red Admiral Vanessa atalanta Swamp openings and edges, marshes, 

meadows, disturbed areas, and rural and 

urban gardens and parks.

Buckeye Junonia coenia Old fields, pastures, meadows, disturbed 

areas, coastal dunes and roadsides.

White Admiral Limentis arythemis Norhtern forest openings, edges, trails and 

roadsides.

Viceroy Limentitis archippus Marshes, meadows, stream and lake 

margins and roadside ditches.

Satyrs, Wood Nymphs and Arctics

Northern Pearly-eye Enodia anthedon Deciduous forests, swamps and edges and 

along streams.

Seney NWR 2004 Butterfly List (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

116

Eyed Brown Satyodes eurydice Open sedge, meadows and edges.

Little Wood-Satyr Megisto cymela Deciduous forests, openings, edges, oakpine barrends, fens, and brushy old fields.

Inornate Ringlet Coenonympha tullia inornata Open Northern forests, grassy old fields, 

meadows and roadsides

Wood Nymph Cercyonis pegala nephele Prairies, meadows, brushey fields, 

disturbed areas and roadsides

Chryxus Arctic Oeneis chryxus strigulosa Open jack pine barrens, dry grassy 

openings and open brushy ridges.

Jutta Arctic Oeneis jutta ascerta Black spruce-tamarask-sphagnum bog 

openings and edges

Milkweed Butterflies

Monarch Danaus plexippus Old fields, meadows, prairies, disturbed 

areas and roadsides.

Skippers

Northern Cloudy Wing Thorybes pylades Open forests and edges, brushy fields, oakpine barrens and roadsides

Dreamy Dusky Wing Eryannis icelus Open forest, especially aspen in Northern 

areas, edges, cut-over forest brushy fields, 

bogs, disturbed areas and roadsides 

Juvenal's Duskywing Erynnis juvenalis Scrub oak woods, edges, cut-over forests 

and roadsides.

Artic Skipper Carterocephalus palaemon 

mandan

Forest openings and edges, stream 

amrgins, bogs and swamps.

Least Skipper Ancyloxypha numitor Streamsides, marsh borders, brushy 

swamps, ditches and along drains

European Skipper Thymelicus lineola Grassy fields, pastures, praries, urban 

areas, parks and roadsides.

Laurentian Skipper Hesperia comma laurentina Open areas, fields, meadows, roadsides and 

lakeshore

Leonard's Skipper Hesperia leonardus Meadows, tall-greass praires, oak-pine 

barrens and roadsides.

Indian Skipper Hesperia sassacus Old fields, praries, cut-over areas, oak-pine 

barrens and roadsides.

Peck's Skipper Polites peckius Meadows, old fields, urban yards and 

parks, right-of-way and roadsides.

Tawny-edge Skipper Polities themistocles Meadows, old fields, pastures, swales, 

disturbed areas, barrens and roadsides.

Crossline Skipper Polites origenes Old fields, praries and oak barrens.

Seney NWR 2004 Butterfly List (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

117

Long Dash Polites mystic Marsh and forest edges, and wetlands 

along stream and roads.

Hobomok Skipper Poanes hobomok Forest openings and edges, meadows, 

disturbed areas and roadsides.

Two-spotted Skipper Euphyes bimacula Sedgy marshes, wet meadows and 

roadsides.

Dun Skipper Eyphyes vestris Meadows, swamp and marsh edges, 

disturbed areas and roadsides.

Pepper and Salt Skipper Amblyscirtes hegon Small, sunny forest openings, swamp edges 

and other partially shaded moist areas.

Roadside Skipper Amblyscirtes vialis Forest openings and edges, oak-pine 

barrens, prairies and roadsides. 

Seney NWR 2004 Butterfly List (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

118

Herptofauna List, Seney NWR 

Common Name Scientific Name Abundance

Special Status

Habitat(s)

Region 3 

Conservation 

Species

Regional 

Forester 

Sensitive

Michigan 

Special 

Animal

Nothern Water Snake Nerodia sipedon 

sipedon

Common Ephemeral wetlands, forests, 

agricultural areas

Northern Red-bellied 

Snake

Storeria 

occipitomaculata 

occipitomaculata

Unknown Permanent wetlands, rivers 

and streams, forests, 

grasslands and savannas, 

agricultural areas, urban 

areas

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 Ringneck 

Snake

Diadophis 

punctatus 

edwardsi

Unknown Rivers and streams, forests, 

grasslands and savannas

Western Fox Snake Elaphe vulpina Unknown Permanent wetlands, rivers 

and streams, forests, 

grasslands and savannas, 

caves and springs

Eastern Smooth Green 

Snake

Opheodrys 

vernalis

Common Forests, grasslands and 

savannas

Snapping Turtle Chelydra 

serpentina

Abundant Ephemeral wetlands, 

permanent wetlands, rivers 

and streams, grasslands and 

savannas, agricultural areas

Wood Turtle Clemmys 

insculpta

Uncommon 3 3 Rivers and streams, forests, 

agricultural areas

Blanding’s Turtle Emydoidea 

blandingii

Unknown 3 3 Ephemeral wetlands, 

permanent wetlands, rivers 

and streams, grasslands and 

savannas, agricultural areas

Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta Abundant Ephemeral wetlands, 

permanent wetlands, rivers 

and streams, grasslands and 

savannas, agricultural areas

Chorus Frog Pseudacris 

triseriata

Uncommon 3 Permanent wetlands, 

grasslands and savannas

Northern Spring Peeper Pseudacris 

crucifer crucifer

Abundant Permanent wetlands, forests, 

grasslands and savannas

Eastern Gray Treefrog Hyla versicolor Common Ephemeral wetlands, 

permanent wetlands, forests

Cope’s Gray Treefrog Hyla chrysoscelis Uncommon Ephemeral wetlands, 

permanent wetlands, forests
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

119

Green Frog Rana clamitans 

melanota

Common Ephemeral wetlands, 

permanent wetlands, forests, 

grasslands and savannas

Nothern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens Common Ephemeral wetlands, 

permanent wetlands, forests, 

grasslands and savannas

Mink Frog Rana 

septentrionalis

Common Ephemeral wetlands, 

permanent wetlands, forests, 

agricultural areas

Wood Frog Rana sylvatica Common 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

Mudpuppy Necturus 

maculosus 

maculosus

Unknown/

Absent?

Ephemeral wetlands, 

agricultural areas

Blue Spotted 

Salamander

Ambystoma 

laterale

Unknown Ephemeral wetlands, 

permanent wetlands, forests, 

grasslands and savannas

Spotted Salamander Ambystoma 

maculatum

Unknown Ephemeral wetlands, 

permanent wetlands, forests

Eastern Tiger 

Salamander

Ambystoma 

tigrinum 

tigrinum

Unknown/

Absent?

Ephemeral wetlands, 

permanent wetlands, forests, 

grasslands and savannas, 

agricultural areas

Eastern Newt Notophthalmus 

viridescens

Unknown/

Absent?

Ephemeral wetlands, 

permanent wetlands, forests

Red-backed Salamander Plethodon 

cinereus

Unknown Forests

Four-toed Salamander Hemidactylium 

scutatum

Unknown/

Absent?

3 Ephemeral wetlands, 

permanent wetlands, forests

Herptofauna List, Seney NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Abundance

Special Status

Habitat(s)

Region 3 

Conservation 

Species

Regional 

Forester 

Sensitive

Michigan 

Special 

Animal
120

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

List of Fish Species Found on Seney NWR Common Name Alternate Common Name Scientific Name Alternate Scientific Name 1994 Statusa 1992 Statusb 1994 Pool Surveyc Manistiq

River Assessm

Northern Pike Esox lucius A A 3 3 Walleye Stizostedion vitreum Sander vitreus N U 3Brown Trout Salmo trutta U N 3Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis U U 3 3 Yellow Perch Perca flavescens R A 3 3 Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus C C 3 3 Bluegill Lepomis marcrocris Lepomis macochrius R R 3 3Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris N U 3 Brown Bullhead Ictalurus nebulosa Ameiurus nebulosa? A A 3 3 White Sucker Catostomus 

commersoni

U U 3 

Northern Redhorse Moxostoma 

macrolepidotum

R U

Creek Chub Semotilus 

atromaculatus

U U 3

Speckled Dace Rhinicthys osculus U U Northern Redbelly Dace

Chrosumus eos Phoxinus eos C C 3

Golden Shiner Notemigonus 

chrysoleucas

Notemigonus crysoleucas

C C 3 3 

Bigmouth Shiner Notropis dorsalis R N

Mimic Shiner Notropis volucellus R N
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

121

Blacknose Shiner Notropis heterolepis C C 3Fathead Minnow Pimephales 

promelas

A A 3

Bluntnose Minnow Hyborynchus 

notatus

Pimephales notatus C C 3

Mud Minnow Umbra limi C U 3Blackside Darter Percina maculata C N 3Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum R N 3 3 Iowa Darter Etheostoma exile C N

Fantail Darter Striped Fantail 

Darter

Etheostoma flabellare

R N 3

Nothern Muddler Mottled Sculpin Cottus bairdi R N 3Brook Stickleback Cluaea inconstans C C 3 3Northern Brook Lamprey

Ichthyomyzon fossor

3

Silver Lamprey Icthyomyzon 

unicupsis

3

American Brook Lamprey

Lampetra appendix 3

Sea Lamprey1 Petromyzon 

marinus

3

Lake Sturgeon1,3 Acipenser 

fulvescens

3

List of Fish Species Found on Seney NWR (Continued)

Common Name

Alternate 

Common 

Name Scientific Name

Alternate 

Scientific Name

1994 

Statusa

1992 

Statusb

1994 

Pool 

Surveyc

Manistiq

River 

Assessm
122

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus

3

Sand Shiner Notropis 

stramineus

3

Finescale Dace Phoxinus neogaeus

3

Longnose Dace Rhinicthys 

cataractae

3

Burbot Lota lota

3

Smallmouth Bass Micropterus 

dolomieu

3

Northern Logperch Percina caprodes

3

3

Black Crappie Pomoxis 

nigromaculatus

3

Pugnose Shiner3 Notropis anogenus

3

Central Mudminnow Umbra limi Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus 

kisutch

List of Fish Species Found on Seney NWR (Continued)

Common Name

Alternate 

Common 

Name Scientific Name

Alternate 

Scientific Name

1994 

Statusa

1992 

Statusb

1994 

Pool 

Surveyc

Manistiq

River 

Assessm
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

123

Mammal Species Found on Seney NWR 

Common Name Scientific Name

Ordinal 

Abundance Habitat(s)1 Habitat(s)

S

Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities

Opossum Didelphis virginiana Absent? Deciduous woods near stream or 

lake, semi open country brushy 

fenelines, drainage ditches, and swamp borders

MDF, WDF, SUP

Northern Short-tailed Shrew

Blarina brevicauda Abundant Moist environments with 

extensive herbaceous cover or a 

thick layer of litter

WDF, MDF, WMF, WCF, 

SWE

Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus Abundant Moist woodlots containing 

abundant plant cover, thick leaf 

litter, and decaying logs. Can include overgrown fields, alder thicket, cedar swamps, weedy fencerows, grassy marshes, and sphagnum bogs

MDF, WDF, PA

S, GRA, 

HAY, SWE

Water Shrew Sorex palustris Uncommon Sluggish stream, bog or seasonal 

pond, but optimal habitat is small 

forest lined stream, with fast flowing water, and plenty of cover provided by undercut banks, jumbled rocks, downed trees, and other debris.

MDF, MMF, MCF, SHO

Arctic Shrew Sorex arcticus Common Fairly dr y fields and forest 

openings, prefers moist areas 

adjacent to a lake, bog, swamp, or ditch

DDF, DMF, DCF, SHO

Pygmy Shrew Sorex hoyi Unknown Deciduous woods, coniferous 

forests, regenerating clear-cuts, 

grassy fields, swamps, bogs, and floodplains. Most live in boreal habitats with extensive ground cover.

DDF, MDF, DMF, DCF, 

G RA , S U P, SWE
124

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Star-nosed Mole Condylura cristata Common Wet saturated soils and frequents the borders of swamps, lakes, 

streams, or isolated areas of poor drainage.

WDF, WMF, WCF, SWE, 

OWE

Little Brown Bat Myotis lucifugus Common Buildings RESNorthern Bat Myotis septentrionalis Unknown Silver maples, hollow green ash, 

underneath loose bark of dead 

trees

DDF

Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus Unknown Any tree with dense shade, 

seclusion, and clear space below 

the roost

DDF, MDF, DMF, MMF, 

DCF, MCF

Red Bat Lasiurus borealis Unknown Leafy trees (elms, maples) or in 

conifers

DDF, MDF, DMF, DCF, 

MCF

Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus Unknown Buildings RESSilver-haired Bat Lasionycteris 

noctivagans

Unknown Fond of willows, maple or ash DDF, MDF

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

Woodchuck Marmota monax Common Rolling farmland interspersed 

with grassy pastures, small 

woodlots, and brushy fencelines

OLD, GRA, PAS, HAY

Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus Absent? Herbaceous vegetation abounds 

and potential shelter exists from 

brush piles, shrubby thickets, or weedy fencerows.

SU P, O LD , GRA, PAS, 

HAY

Mammal Species Found on Seney NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name

Ordinal 

Abundance Habitat(s)1 Habitat(s)

S

Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

125

Eastern Grey Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Common Abundant deciduous trees, in 

extensive forested tracts, dense 

woodlots, riparian strips Can be stands of walnut, hickory, maple or beech are preferable it may frequent mixed deciduous/coniferous stands.

DDF, MDF, DMF, MMF

Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger Absent? Deciduous trees in areas that lack 

a well-developed understory. 

Frequents woodlots, forest-field edges

DDF, MDF, OLD

Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus 

hudsonicus

Abundant Extensive stands of evergreen 

trees or mixed Coniferous/deciduous woodland

D CF, MC F, DMF, MMF

Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel

Spermophilus tridecemlineatus

Rare Open areas with short grass GRA

Eastern Chipmunk Tamis striatus Abundant Open deciduous forests where 

stumps, logs, rocky outcrops 

Ultimate habitat beech maple forest

DDF, MDF

Least Chipmunk Tamias minimus Common Boreal forest edge and internal 

forest clearings.

DDF, MDF, DMF, MMF

Northern Flying Squirrel

Glaucomys sabrinus Common Mixed forests with mature 

deciduous and coniferous trees. Also frequents pure stands of 

either type.

DMF, MMF

Southern Flying Squirrel

Glaucomys volans Rare Open deciduous woodlots with 

few shrubby thickets scattered 

among mature trees.

DDF, MDF

Beaver Castor canadensis Common Slow-moving streams or lakes 

border ed by young forests 

containing aspen, willow, or alder.

SHO

Mammal Species Found on Seney NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name

Ordinal 

Abundance Habitat(s)1 Habitat(s)

S

Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities
126

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

House Mouse Mus musculus Rare Buildings, cultivated fields, fencerows, wooded areas (around 

buildings)

RES, HAY

Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus Rare Buildings, cultivated fields. RES, HAY

Woodland Deer Mouse Peromyscus 

maniculatus gracilis

Abundant Forested habitats, shrubby areas, 

regenerating clear-cuts, and 

recent burns.

SU P, D C F, 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.

MD F, M M F, MCF, SWE, 

SHO

White-footed Mouse Peromyscus leucopus Uncommon Deciduous woodlands, where 

herbaceous cover is moderate and 

rocks and logs are abundant.

DDF, MDF

Meadow Vole Microtus 

pennsylvanicus

Common Moist, grassy fields and also 

frequents marshes and bog thick 

with greases, sedges and rushes.

SWE, OLD, OWE

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Common Slow-moving streams, lakes, 

ponds, and especially marshes.

OWA, OWE

Southern Bog Lemming Synaptomys cooperi Uncommon Old fields, clear-cuts, shrubby 

locations, and upland woods. 

Frequents wet forested sites dominated by spruce, cedar, or tamarack, as well as more open sphagnum bogs.

MDF, WDF, MM

F, WMF, 

MC , WC F, O RA , S U P, SWE

Woodland Jumping Mouse

Napaeozapus insignis Uncommon Cool moist forests, with spruce-fir 

and hemlock hardwood 

associations but also in pure deciduous stands. Must be littered with rocks, logs, and stumps coated with a lush growth of ferns, grasses, and other.

MDF, MMF, MCF

Mammal Species Found on Seney NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name

Ordinal 

Abundance Habitat(s)1 Habitat(s)

S

Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

127

Meadow Jumping Mouse

Zapus hudsonius Common Variety of habitats. Fallow fields, 

woodland edges, shrubby 

thickets. Abundant in moist sites containing lush growth of grasses and forbs (damp meadows, streamside vegetation, and marsh borders)

SWE, GRA, PAS, SHO

Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum Common Deciduous and coniferous 

woodlands of stands containing 

pine and hemlock.

DDF, MDF, DMF, MMF, 

DCF, MCF

Gray Wolf Canis lupus Uncommon Diverse habitats. DDF, MDF, 

DMF, MMF, D CF, MC F, SU P, O LD , GRA, PAS, HAY, SHO

3

Coyote Canis latrans Common Prairies, brushy area, wooded 

edges

DDF, MDF, DMF, MMF, 

D CF, MC F, PAS, GRA, HAY

Gray Fox Urocyon 

cinereoargenteus

Rare In wooded swamps and in 

bottomland forests where 

woodlands and farmlands are mixed

DDF, MDF, DMF, MMF, 

DCF, WCF

Red Fox Vulpes vulpes Common Open country with reliable cover 

nearby, frequents forest-field edges, brushy fencelines and wooded borders of streams or lakes.

DDF, OLD, PA

S, HAY

Black Bear Ursus americanus Common Dense coniferous or deciduous 

woods having a thick understory.

DDF, MDF, DMF, MMF, 

DCF, MCF

Mammal Species Found on Seney NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name

Ordinal 

Abundance Habitat(s)1 Habitat(s)

S

Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities
128

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

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

Mink Mustela vison Common Streams, ponds, lakes with at 

least some brushy or rocky cover.

OWA, SWA

Short-tailed Weasel Mustela erminea Common Open forests, riparian woodlands, 

and shrubby fencerows.

Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata Uncommon Forest-field edges, brushy 

fencelines, and wooded areas with 

shrubby cover

DDF, MDF, OLD, PAS, SHO

Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis Common Mix of forests, fields, and wooded 

ravines.

H AY, PA S , DDF, MDF, 

DMF, MMF, DCF, DMF

River Otter2 Lutra canadensis Common Clean, moderately deep streams, 

ponds, lakes.

OWA

Badger2 Taxidae taxus Unknown Grasslands, open fields, and 

pastures.

GRA, PAS, HAY

Marten2 Martes americana Uncommon Closed coniferous woodlands 

underlain by a lush growth of shrubs and forbs and appears less 

in mixed stands.

DCF, MCF

Fisher Martes pennanti Common Interior of dense coniferous 

forests. Capable of living in 

mature deciduous woods.

D CF, MC F, DDF, MD

F

Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis Unknown Mature coniferous forests that 

are strewn with thick litter, ferns, 

and rotting logs.

D CF, MC F, WCF

Mammal Species Found on Seney NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name

Ordinal 

Abundance Habitat(s)1 Habitat(s)

S

Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

129

Bobcat Lynx rufus Common Lies in coniferous and mixed 

deciduous/coniferous woods. 

Readily occupies wooded swamps close to riparian forest

DMF, MMF, DCF, MCF

White-tailed Deer Odocoileus 

virginianus

Abundant Open forest environments 

interspersed with meadows, 

woodland clearings or farmland.

Moose Alces alces Rare Boreal forest, particularly early 

successional stages, dominated by 

shrubby growth and immature trees. Frequents moist habitats as cedar swamps marshes and alder-willow thickets bordering waterways.

1. Habitat information obtained from: Kurta (2001). Habitat Definitions (Brewer et al. 1991): DDF= Dry Deciduous Forest or Sa

Deciduous Forest; WDF= Wet Deciduous Forest; DMF= Dry Mixed Forest or Savanna; MMF= Mesic Mixed Forest; WMFDCF=Dry Coniferous Forest; MCF=Mesic Coniferous Forest; WCF= Wet Coniferous Forest; SUP= Shrub Uplands; SWE= SOld Field; GRA= Grassland ; PAS= Pasture; HAY= Hayfield; OWE=Open Wetland; SHO= Shoreland; OWA= Open Water

Mammal Species Found on Seney NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name

Ordinal 

Abundance Habitat(s)1 Habitat(s)

S

Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

130

Seney NWR Herbarium1

Taxonomy Common Name

MONOCOTYLEDONEAE (see Michigan Flora, Part 1)

14. TYPHACEAE CAT-TAIL FAMILY

1. Typha angustifolia Narrow-leaved Cat-tail

 2. Typha latifolia Common Cat-tail

 T. Typha x glauca Hybrid of above

15. SPARGANIACEAE BUR-REED FAMILY

 1. Sparganium eurycarpum

 2. Sparganium minimum

 3. Sparganium fluctuans

 4. Sparganium americanum

 6. Sparganium chlorocarpum

 7. Sparganium angustifolium

16. POTAMOGETONACEAE PONDWEED FAMILY

 1. Potamogeton robbinsii

 2. Potamogeton pectinatus Sago Pondweed

 3. Potamogeton filiformis

 6. Potamogeton praelongus

 7. Potamogeton richardsonii

 9. Potamogeton epihydrus

10. Potamogeton alpinus

11. Potamogeton amplifolius

14. Potamogeton illinoensis

15. Potamogeton gramineus

16. Potamogeton natans

18. Potamogeton zosteriformis

24. Potamogeton friesii

25. Potamogeton strictifolius

 P. Potamogeton x longiligulatus

26. Potamogeton confervoides

27. Potamogeton obtusifolius

28. Potamogeton foliosus
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

131

30. Potamogeton berchtoldii

17. NAJADACEAE NAIAD FAMILY

4. Najas flexilis

19. ALISMATACEAE WATER-PLANTAIN FAMILY

 3. Sagittaria graminea 

 4. Sagittaria latifolia Wapato; Duck-potato 

21. HYDROCHARITACEAE FROG=S-BIT FAMILY

 1. Vallisneria americana Tape-grass; wild-celery

22. GRAMINAE (POACEAE) GRASS FAMILY

 1. POEAE (Tribe)

 1. Phragmites Reed

 1. Phragmites australis 

 2. Dactylis 

1. Dactylis glomerata Orchard Grass

 9. Poa Bluegrass

10. Poa compressa Canada Bluegrass

11. Poa pratensis Kentucy Bluegrass

12. Poa palustris Fowl Meadow Grass

13. Bromus Brome Grass

 3. Bromus inermis Smooth Brome

 8. Bromus ciliatus Fringed Brome

15. Glyceria Manna Grass

 2. Glyceria borealis

 4. Glyceria canadensis Rattlesnake Grass

 6. Glyceria striata Foul Manna Grass

2. TRITICEAE (Tribe)

 5. Hystix

 1. Hystix patula Bottlebrush Grass

 7. Lolium

 2. Lolium perenne Ryegrass

Seney NWR Herbarium1 (Continued)

Taxonomy Common Name
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

132

 8. Agropyron

 2. Agropyron trachycaulum Wheatgrass

 5. Agropyron repens Quack Grass

4. AGROSTIDEAE (Tribe)

 4. Oryzopsis Rice-grass

 4. Oryzopsis asperifolia Rice-grass 

 5. Muhlenbergia “Muhly”

 10. Muhlenbergia Mexicana

 7. Phleum

 2. Phleum pratense Timothy

14. Calamagrostis Reedgrass

 2. Calamagrostis canadensis Blue-joint

17. Agrostis Bentgrass

 2. Agrostis gigantea Redtop

 6. Agrostis hyemalis Ticklegrass

5. CHLORIDEAE (Tribe)

 7. Spartina 

 2. Spartina pectinata Cordgrass

 6. PHALARIDEAE (Tribe)

 3. Phalaris

 2. Phalaris arundinacea Reed Canary Grass

 8. ZIZANIEAE (Tribe)

 1. Zizania

 1. Zizania aquatica Wild-rice

 9. PANICEAE (Tribe)

 3. Echinochloa

 3. Echinochloa muricata

 7. Panicum Panic Grass

 1. Panicum virgatum Switch Grass

 27. Panicum columbianum

Seney NWR Herbarium1 (Continued)

Taxonomy Common Name
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

133

10. ANDROPOGONEAE (Tribe)

1. Andropogoneae

2. Andropogoneae scoparius Little Bluestem

3. Andropogoneae gerardii Big Bluestem; Turkeyfoot

23. CYPERACEAE SEDGE FAMILY

 1. Carex (Genus) Sedge

13. Ovales (Group)

60. Carex bebbii

 65. Carex crawfordii

16. Montanae (Group)

 77. Carex pensylvanica

33. Carex (Group)

121. Carex flava

129. Carex lasiocarpa

38. Acutae (Group)

144. Carex crinita

42. Pseudo-Cypereae (Group)

149. Carex pseudo-cyperus

43. Paludosae (Group)

157. Carex lacustris

45. Vesicariae (Group)

161. Carex oligosperma

162. Carex tuckermanii

165. Carex rostrata

46. Lupulinae (Group)

167. Carex intumescens

 3. Dulichium (Genus)

 1. Dulichium arundinaceum Three-way Sedge

 4. Cyperus Nut-grass; Umbrella Sedge

12. Cyperus odoratus

13. Cyperus esculentus

Seney NWR Herbarium1 (Continued)

Taxonomy Common Name
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

134

 5. Eleocharis Spike-rush

 8. Eleocharis acicularis

16. Eleocharis erythropopa

17. Eleocharis smallii

 6. Rhynchospora 

 3. Rhynchospora fusca

 7. Cladium

1. Cladium mariscoides Twig-rush

11. Scirpus Bulrush

 5. Scirpus validus Softstem Bulrush 

 6. Scirpus acutus Hardstem Bulrush

11. Scirpus americanus Threesquare

19. Scirpus cyperinus Wool-grass

14. Eriophorum Cotton-grass; Bog-cotton

 4. Eriophorum virginicum Tawny Cotton-grass

 5. Eriophorum angustifolium

24. ARACEAE ARUM FAMILY

 1. Arisaema

 1. Arisaema triphyllum Jack-in-the-pulpit; Indian-turnip

 3. Peltandra

 1. Peltandra virginica Arrow-arum; Tuckahoe 

25. LEMNACEAE DUCKWEED FAMILY

 3. Lemna

 3. Lemna minor

27. ERIOCAULACEAE PIPEWORT FAMILY

 1. Eriocaulon septangulare Pipewort

30. PONTEDERIACEAE PICKEREL-WEED FAMILY

 2. Heteranthera

 1. Heteranthera dubia Water Star-grass

Seney NWR Herbarium1 (Continued)

Taxonomy Common Name
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

135

31. JUNCACEAE RUSH FAMILY

 2. Juncus

 1. Juncus effuses

14. Juncus pelocarpus

15. Juncus Canadensis

17. Juncus brevicaudatus

22. Juncus nodosus

32. LILIACEAE LILY FAMILY

3. Polygonatum Solomon-seal

 2. Polygonatum pubescens

 4. Streptopus Twisted-stalk

 1. Streptopus amplexifolius

5. Trillium Trillium; Wake-robin

6. Trillium grandiflorum Common Trillium

9. Trillium cernuum Nodding Trillium

6. Medeola

1. Medeola virginiana Indian Cucumber-root

7. Erythronium Trout-lily; Dogtooth-violet; Adder=s-tongue

 1. Erythronium americanum

 8. Lilium

 1. Lilium philadelphicum Wood Lily

12. Allium

 4. Allium schoenoprasum Chives

15. Maianthemum

1. Maianthemum canadense Wild or False Lily-of-the-valley; Canada Mayflower 

16. Smilacina False Solomon-seal

 1. Smilacina racemosa False Spikenard

 2. Smilacina trifolia

 3. Smilacina stellata

Seney NWR Herbarium1 (Continued)

Taxonomy Common Name
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

136

36. IRIDACEAE IRIS FAMILY

 1. Sisyrinchium Blue-eyed-grass

 8. Sisyrinchium montanum

 2. Iris Iris; Flag

 6. Iris versicolor Wild Blue Flag

39. ORCHIDACEAE ORCHID FAMILY

 1. Cypripedium Lady-slipper

 1. Cypripedium acaule Moccasin Flower; Pink or Stemless Lady-slipper

 4. Arethusa

 1. Arethusa bulbosa Arethusa; Dragon=s Mouth.

 5. Pogonia

 1. Pogonia ophioglossoides Rose Pogonia

 8. Habenaria ARein Orchid@

 3. Habenaria psycodes Purple Fringed Orchid

 5. Habenaria lacera Ragged Fringed Orchid

11. Habenaria clavellata Club-spur Orchid

 9. Corallorhiza Coral-root

 1. Corallorhiza maculata Spotted Coral-root

 2. Corallorhiza trifida Early Coral-root

 3. Corallorhiza striata Striped Coral-root

10. Listera Twayblade

 2. Listera convallarioides Broad-leaved Twayblade

18. Spiranthes Ladies=-tresses

 1. Spiranthes lacera Slender Ladies=-tresses

 5. Spiranthes cernua Nodding Ladies=-tresses

DICOTYLEDONEAE (see Michigan Flora, Part 2

41. SALICAEAE WILLOW FAMILY

1. Salix Willow

 1. Salix exigua Sandbar Willow

 3. Salix ericophala

 7. Salix pellita Satiny Willow

Seney NWR Herbarium1 (Continued)

Taxonomy Common Name
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

137

 9. Salix candida Sage Willow

 13. Salix humilis Prairie Willow

 24. Salix petiolaris Slender Willow

2. Populus Poplar

 6. Populus tremuloides Quaking Aspen

 7. Populus grandidentata Largetooth 

Aspen

42. MYRICACAE BAYBERRRY FAMILY

1. Comptonia

 1. Comptonia peregrina Sweetfern

2. Myrica Bayberry; Wax-myrtle

 1. Myrica gale Sweet Gale

45. BETULACEAE (formerly Corylaceae) BIRCH FAMILY

1. Alnus Alder

2. Alnus rugosa Speckled Alder; Tag Alder

2. Betula Birch

 2. Betula pumila Bog or Dwarf Birch

 4. Betula papyrifera Paper, White, or Canoe Birch

3. Corylus Hazel

 2. Corlyus cornuta Beaked Hazelnut

46. FAGACEAE BEECH FAMILY

 1. Quercus Oak

 3. Quercus rubra Red Oak

 7. Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak

 2. Fagus Beech

 1. Fagus grandifolia American Beech

47. ULMACEAE ELM FAMILY

 1. Ulmus Elm

 3. Ulmus americana American or White Elm

Seney NWR Herbarium1 (Continued)

Taxonomy Common Name
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

138

49. CANNABACEAE HEMP FAMILY

2. Humulus

2. Humulus lupulus Common Hops

54. POLYGONACEAE SMARTWEED FAMILY

2. Rumex Dock

 1. Rumex acetosella Sheep or Red Sorrel

5. Polygonum Smartweed; Knotweed

12. Polygonum cilinode Fringed False Buckwheat

16. Polygonum amphibium Water Smartweed

16. (a) P.a. var. natans (see var. stipulaceum) 

16. (b) P.a. var. coccineum (see var. emersum)

18. Polygonum lapathifolium Willow-weed

20. Polygonum orientale Prince’s Feather; Kiss-me-over-the-garden-gate

23. Polygonum hydropiperoides Mild Water-pepper

55. CHENOPODIACEAE GOOSEFOOT FAMILY

9. Chenopodium Goosefoot

 9. Chenopodium capitatum Strawberry Blite

60. PORTULACACEA PURSLANE FAMILY

2. Claytoni Spring-beauty

 2. Claytonia caroliniana 

61. CARYOPHYLLACEAE PINK FAMILY

6. Stellaria Chickweed; Stitchwort

 5. Stellaria longifolia

7. Cerastium Chickweed

 6. Cerastium vulgatum (see C. fontanum) Mouse-ear Chickweed

13. Dianthus Pink

 4. Dianthus deltoides Maiden Pink

17. Silene

4. Silene cucubalus (see S. vulgaris) Bladder Campion

11. Silene pratensis (see Lychnus alba below)

Seney NWR Herbarium1 (Continued)

Taxonomy Common Name
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

139

18. Lychnis

 * Lychnis alba (see Silene pratensis) White Cockle; White Campion

62. CERATOPHYLLACEAE HORNWORT FAMILY

 1. Ceratophyllum Coontail

 1. Ceratophyllum demersum

63. NYMPHAEACEAE WATER-LILY FAMILY

 2. Brasenia

 1. Brasenia schreberi Water-shield

 4. Nymphaea Water-lily

 2. Nymphaea odorata 

 5. Nuphar Pond-lily; Cow-lily; Spatterdock

 2. Nuphar variegate

64. RANUNCULACEAE BUTTERCUP FAMILY

 1. Clematis Virgin=s Bower; Clematis; Woodbine

 2. Clematis virginiana

 2. Aquilegia Columbine

 1. Aguilegia canadensis Wild Columbine

 5. Thalictrum Meadow-rue

 4. Thalictrum dasycarpum Purple Meadow-rue

 7. Actaea Baneberry

 1. Actaea rubra Red Baneberry

 2. Actaea pachyppoda White Baneberry

 8. Coptis

 1. Coptis groenlandica (see C. trifolia) Goldthread

 9. Hepatica Hepatica

 2. Hepatica americana

11. Ranunculus Buttercup; Crowfoot

11. Ranunculus abortibus Small-flowered Buttercup

15. Ranunculus acris Tall or Common Buttercup

Seney NWR Herbarium1 (Continued)

Taxonomy Common Name
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

140

71. PAPAVERACEAE POPPY FAMILY

*FUMARIACEAE (often included as a subfamily 

in the Papaveraceae) 

 FUMITORY FAMILY

1. Dicentra

2. Dicentra cucullaria Dutchman=s-breeches

3. Dicentra canadensis Squirrel-corn

73. CRUCIFERAE (BRASSICACEAE) MUSTARD FAMILY

 3. Barbarea Winter Cress

 1. Barbarea vulgaris Yellow Rocket

 8. Rorippa Yellow Cress

 3. Rorippa islandica (see R. palustris)

 14. Erysimum

 2. Erysimum cheiranthoides Wormseed Mustard

20. Capsella

 1. Capsella bursa-pastoris Shepherd=s-purse

21. Arabis

 6. Arabis glabra Tower Mustard

25. Berteroa

 1. Berteroa incana Hoary Alyssum

75. SARRACENIACEAE PITCHER-PLANT FAMILY

 1. Sarracenia

 1. Sarracenia purpurea Pitcher-plant

76. DROSERACEAE SUNDEW FAMILY

 1. Drosera Sundew

 1. Drosera rotundifolia Round-leaved Sundew

78. CRASSULACEAE ORPINE FAMILY

 1. Sedum Stonecrop; Sedum; Orpine

 4. Sedum purureum (see S. telephium) Live-forever

Seney NWR Herbarium1 (Continued)

Taxonomy Common Name
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

141

79. SAXIFRAGACEAE SAXIFRAGE FAMILY

 *GROSSULARIACEAE (Often included in the 

Saxifragaceae)

GOOSEBERRY FAMILY

 1. Ribes Currant; Gooseberry 

 1. Ribes cynosbati Wild or Prickly Gooseberry

 9. Ribes glandulosum Skunk Currant

82. ROSACEAE ROSE FAMILY

 1. Rubus Bramble; Rasberries; Dewberries; Blackberries

6. Rubus strigosus(-idaeus) Wild Red Raspberry

 8. Rubus hispidus Swamp Dewberry

 9. Rubus flagellaris Northern Dewberry

11. Rubus allegheniensis Common Blackberry

 2. Rosa

 1. Rosa multiflora Multiflora or Japanese Rose

 9. Rosa palustris Swamp Rose

13. Rosa acicularis Wild Rose

14. Rosa blanda Wild Rose

 4. Sorbus Mountain-ash

 3. Sorbus americana

 5. Prunus Cherry; Plum

 2. Prunus virginiana Choke Cherry

 5. Prunus pumila Sand Cherry

 7. Prunus pensylvanica Pin or Fire Cherry

 6. Physocarpus

 1. Physocarpus opulifolius Ninebark

 7. Spiraea Spiraea

 3. Spiraea tomentosa Hardhack; Steeplebush

 4. Spiraea alba Meadowsweet

 8. Aronia

 1. Aronia prunifolia Chokeberry

Seney NWR Herbarium1 (Continued)

Taxonomy Common Name
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

142

 9. Amelanchier Serviceberry; Shadbush; Shadblow; Juneberry; 

Sugarplum

 4. Amelanchier interior

10. Crataegus Hawthorn, Thornapple

 4. Crataegus douglasii Black Hawthorn

11. Malus Apple

1. Malus pumila Apple

17. Fragaria Strawberry

 1. Fragaria vesca Woodland Strawberry

18. Potentilla Cinquefoil; Five-finger

 1. Potentilla fruticosa Shrubby Cinquefoil

 2. Potentilla palustris Marsh Cinquefoil

 3. Potentilla anserina Silverweed

 8. Potentilla tridentata Three-toothed Cinquefoil

 9. Potentilla norvegica Rough Cinquefoil

10. Potentilla simplex Common or Old-field Cinquefoil

12. Potentilla argentea Silver Cinquefoil

 21. Geum

 7. Geum macrophyllum Avens

83. LEGUMINOSAE (FABACEAE) PEA FAMILY

 3. Melilotus Sweet-clover

 1. Melilotus alba White Sweet-clover

 2. Melilotus officinalis Yellow Sweet-clover

 4. Trifolium Clover

 3. Trifolium pratense Red Clover

 6. Trifolium repens White Clover

 8. Trifolium agrarium (see T. aureum) Hop Clover

 5. Medicago

 2. Medicago lupulina Black Medick

26. Vicia Vetch

 8. Vicia villosa Hairy Vetch

Seney NWR Herbarium1 (Continued)

Taxonomy Common Name
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

143

29. Lotus

 1. Lotus corniculata Birdfoot Trefoil

85. OXALIDACEAE OXALIS or WOOD-SORREL FAMILY

 1. Oxalis

 3. Oxalis Fontana

86. GERANIACEAE GERANIUM FAMILY

 2. Geranium Wild Geranium; Crane=s-bill

 3. Geranium robertianum Herb Robert

91. POLYGALACEAE MILKWORT FAMILY

 1. Polygala Milkwort; Polygala

 1. Polyagala paucifolia Fringed Polygala; Gay-wings; Flowering-wintergreen

92. EUPHORBIACEAE SPURGE FAMILY

 4. Euphorbia

18. Euphorbia esula Leafy Spurge

97. ANACARDIACEAE CASHEW FAMILY

 1. Toxicodendron

 2. Toxicodendron radicans Poison-ivy

99. AQUIFOLIACEAE HOLLY FAMILY

 2. Ilex Holly

 1. Ilex verticillata Michigan Holly; Winterberry; Black Alder

100. CELASTRACEAE BITTERSWEET FAMILY

 2. Euonymus

 2. Euonymus alata Winged Euonymus

102. ACERACEAE MAPLE FAMILY

 1. Acer Maple

 3. Acer saccharum Sugar Maple or Hard Maple

 5. Acer rubrum Red Maple

105. BALSAMINACEAE TOUCH-ME-NOT FAMILY

 1. Impatiens

 4. Impatiens capensis Spotted Touch-me-not

Seney NWR Herbarium1 (Continued)

Taxonomy Common Name
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

144

106. RHAMNACEAE BUCKTHORN FAMILY

 2. Rhamnus Buckthorn

 1. Rhamnus frangula Glossy Buckthorn

107. VITACEAE GRAPE FAMILY

 3. Parthenocissus Virginia Creeper; Woodbine

 2. Parthenocissus inserta

108. TILIACEAE LINDEN FAMILY

 1. Tilia

1. Tilia americana Basswood; Linden

109. MALVACEAE MALLOW FAMILY

3. Malva Mallow

2. Malva moschata Musk Mallow

111. GUTTIFERAE (CLUSIACEAE) ST. JOHN=S-WORT FAMILY

1. Triadenum

1. Triadenum fraseri

 2. Hypericum St. John=s-wort

 2. Hypericum kalmianum Kalm St. John=s-wort

 6. Hypericum perforatum Common St. John=s-wort; Klamath Weed; Goatweed

 7. Hypericum ellipticum

12. Hypericum majus

114. CISTACEAE ROCKROSE FAMILY

 2. Helianthemum Rockrose; Frostweed

 2. Helianthemum canadense

115. VIOLACEAE VIOLET FAMILY

 2. Viola Violet

 3. Viola canadensis Canada Violet

 7. Viola conspersa Dog Violet

11. Viola pallens (see V. macloskeyi) Smooth White Violet

22. Viola nephrophylla

Seney NWR Herbarium1 (Continued)

Taxonomy Common Name
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

145

119. THYMELAEACEAE MEZEREUM FAMILY

1. Dirca

 1. Dirca palustris Leatherwood

120. ELAEAGNACEAE OLEASTER FAMILY

 1. Elaegnus

 1. Elaegnus angustifolia Russian Olive

 2. Elaegnus umbellata Autumn Olive

121. LYTHRACEAE LOOSESTRIFE FAMILY

 4. Lythrum Loosestrife

 1. Lythrum salicaria Purple Loosestrife

125. ONAGRACEAE EVENING-PRIMROSE FAMILY

 1. Circaea Enchanter=s-nightshade

 1. Circaea alpine

 2. Ludwigia False Loosestrife

 1. Ludwigia palustris Water-purslane

 3. Epilobium Willow-herb

 1. Epilobium angustifolium Fireweed; Great Willow-herb

 7. Epilobium ciliatum

 6. Oenothera Evening-primrose; Sundrops 

 3. Oenothera linearis (now O. fruticosa) (see 

Gray=s Manual, p. 1066)

Evening-primrose; Sundrops 

 9. Oenothera parvifola

12. Oenothera biennis

126. HALORAGACEAE WATER-MILFOIL FAMILY

 2. Myriophyllum Water-milfoil

 5. Myriophyllum verticillatum

 6. Myriophyllum exalbescens

129. UMBELLIFERAE (APIACEAE) CARROT OR PARSLEY FAMILY

 6. Daucus

 1. Daucus carota Wild Carrot; Queen-Anne=s-lace

Seney NWR Herbarium1 (Continued)

Taxonomy Common Name
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

146

 9. Osmorhiza Sweet-cicely

 3. Osmorhiza longistylis

 4. Osmorhiza claytonii Sweet-cicely

 33. Cicuta

 1. Cicuta bulbifera

130. CORNACEAE DOGWOOD FAMILY

 1. Cornus Dogwood

 1. Cornus canadensis Bunchberry; Dwarf Cornel

 2. Cornus alternifolia Alternate-leaved Dogwood; Pagoda Dogwood

 5. Cornus rugosa Round-leaved Dogwood

 6. Cornus stolonifera Red-osier

DICOTYLEDONEAE (see Michigan Flora, Part 3)

132. PYROLACEAE SHINLEAF OR WINTERGREEN FAMILY

 1. Pyrola Shinleaf; Pyrola

 2. Pyrola elliptica

MONOTROPACEAE (often included in the Pyrolaceae or as a subspecies in the Ericaceae)INDIAN-PIPE FAMILY

 2. Monotropa

 2. Monotropa uniflora Indian-pipe

133. ERICACEAE HEATH FAMILY

 3. Andromeda

 1. Andromeda glaucophylla Bog-rosemary

 4. Ledum

 1. Ledum groenlandicum Labrador-tea

 5. Chamaedaphne

 1. Chamaedaphne calyculata Leatherleaf

 6. Gaylussacia

 1. Gaylussacia baccata Huckleberry; Crackleberry

 7. Vaccinium Blueberries and Cranberries

 2. Vaccinium oxycoccos Small cranberry

 3. Vaccinium macrocarpon Large cranberry

Seney NWR Herbarium1 (Continued)

Taxonomy Common Name
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

147

 9. Vaccinium myrtilloides Velvetleaf or Canada Blueberry

11. Vaccinium angustifolium Low Sweet Blueberry

 8. Epigaea

 1. Epigaea repens Trailing-arbutus

 9. Gaultheria

 2. Gaultheria procumbens Teaberry; Wintergreen

10. Arctostaphylos

 1. Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Bearberry; Kinnikinick

135. PRIMULACEAE PRIMROSE FAMILY

 5. Lysimachia Loosestrife

 5. Lysimachia terrestris Swamp-candles

 6. Lysimachia thyrsiflora Tufted Loosestrife

 6. Trientalis 

 1. Trientalis borealis Star-flower

141. OLEACEAE OLIVE FAMILY

 1. Fraxinus Ash

 2. Fraxinus nigra Black Ash

 3. Fraxinus americana White Ash

143. GENTIANACEAE GENTIAN FAMILY

 6. Gentianaceae

 1. Gentianaceae crinita

 8. Gentiana

 6. Gentiana rubricaulis Red Stemed Gentian

144. APOCYNACEAE DOGBANE FAMILY

 2. Apocynum Dogbane

 1. Apocynum androsaemifolium Spreading Dogbane

 2. Apocynum cannabinum Indian-hemp

145. ASCLEPIADACEAE MILKWEED FAMILY

 2. Asclepias Milkweed

 7. Asclepias incarnata Swamp Milkweed

11. Asclepias syriaca Common Milkweed

Seney NWR Herbarium1 (Continued)

Taxonomy Common Name
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

148

146. CONVOLVULACEAE MORNING-GLORY FAMILY

 2. Convolvulus

 1. Convolvulus arvensis Field Bindweed

150. VERBENACEAE VERVAIN FAMILY

 3. Verbena Vervain

 7. Verbena hastata Blue Vervain

151. LABIATAE (LAMIACEAE) MINT FAMILY

 3. Lycopus Bugleweed; Water-horehound

 1. Lycopus uniflorus

 6. Lycopus americanus Water Horehound

 6. Mentha Mint

 1. Mentha arvensis Wild Mint

 9. Scutellaria Skullcap

 5. Scutellaria epilobiifolia (see S. galericulata) Marsh Skullcap

10. Monarda

 3. Monarda fistulosa Wild Bergamot

17. Prunella

 1. Prunella vulgaris Self-heal; Heal-all

18. Clinopodium

 1. Clinopodium vulgare Wild-basil

20. Stachys Hedge-nettle

 3. Stachys palustris

22. Nepeta

 1. Nepeta cataria Catnip; Catmint

26. Galeopsis

 1. Galeopsis tetrahit Hemp-nettle

152. SOLANACEAE NIGHTSHADE FAMILY

 5. Solanum

2. Solanum carolinense Horse-nettle

3. Solanum dulcamara Nightshade; Bittersweet

Seney NWR Herbarium1 (Continued)

Taxonomy Common Name
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

149

153. SCROPHULARIACEAE SNAPDRAGON FAMILY

 1. Verbascum Mullien

 5. Verbascum thapsus Mullien; Flannel Plant

 5. Linaria Toadflax

 4. Linaria vulgaris Butter-and-eggs

 7. Castilleja Indian Paintbrush

 2. Castilleja coccinea

17. Chelone Turtlehead

 2. Chelone glabra

19. Veronica Speedwell; Brooklime

 5. Veronica scutellata Marsh Speedwell

27. Gerardia (see Agalinis) Gerardia

 2. Agalinis tenuifolia

28. Mimulus Monkey-flower

 2. Mimulus ringens

157. LENTIBULARIACEAE BLADDERWORT FAMILY

 2. Utricularia Bladderwort

 6. Utricularia intermedia Flat-leaved Bladderwort

 8. Utricularia gibba

 9. Utricularia geminiscapa

10. Utricularia vulgaris Common Bladderwort

160. PLANTAGINACEAE PLANTAIN FAMILY

 2. Plantago Plantain

 5. Plantago lanceolata Ribgrass; Buckhorn; Narrow-leaved or English 

Plantain

 9. Plantago major Common Plantain

161. RUBIACEAE MADDER FAMILY

 3. Galium Bedstraw

 3. Galium triflorum

 6. Galium boreale Northern Bedstraw

18. Galium trifidum

Seney NWR Herbarium1 (Continued)

Taxonomy Common Name
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

150

20. Galium tinctorium

 4. Mitchella

 1. Mitchella repens Partridge-berry

162. CAPRIFOLIACEAE HONEYSUCKLE FAMILY

 2. Symphoricarpos Snowberry

3. Symphoricarpos albus Snowberry

 3. Lonicera Honeysuckle

 5. Lonicera dioica Glaucous Honeysuckle

12. Lonicera tatarica Tartarian Honeysuckle

4. Sambucus Elderberry

 1. Sambucus canadensis Common Elder

 2. Sambucus racemosa Red-berried Elder; Red Elderberry

 5. Viburnum Viburnum; Arrow-wood

 1. Viburnum trilobum-opulus (see V. opulus) Highbush-cranberry; Guelder-rose

6. Viburnum dentatum Arrow-wood

8. Viburnum cassinoides Wild-raisin

10. Viburnum lentago Nannyberry

 6. Linnaea

 1. Linnaea borealis Twinflower

 7. Diervilla

 1. Diervilla lonicera Bush-honeysuckle

166. CUCURBITACEAE GOURD FAMILY

 4. Echinocystis

 1. Echinocystis lobata Wild Cucumber

167. CAMPANULACEAE BELLFLOWER FAMILY

 2. Campanula Bellflower

 3. Campanula aparinoides C. uliginosa (same as 

above)

Marsh Bellflower

Seney NWR Herbarium1 (Continued)

Taxonomy Common Name
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

151

168. COMPOSITAE (ASTERACEAE) ASTER OR DAISY FAMILY

Group A

 8. Tragopogon Goat=s-beard

 2. Tragopogon dubius (T. major included in 

above)

11. Hieracium Hawkweed

3. Hieracium aurantiacum Orange Hawkweed; Devil=s-paintbrush

4. Hieracium florentinum (see H. piloselloides) King Devil; Yellow Hawkweed

6. Hieracium venosum Rattlesnake-weed; Veined Hawkweed

13. Sonchus Sow-thistle

 1. Sonchus arvensis Field or Perennial Sow-thistle

16. Lactuca

 6. Lactuca serriola Prickly Lettuce

Group B

17. Megalodonta

 1. Megalodonta beckii Water-marigold

20. Bidens Beggar-ticks

 1. Bidens cernuus Nodding Beggar-ticks

26. Chrysanthemum Chrysanthemum

 1. Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Ox-eye Daisy

27. Achillea Yarrow

 3. Achillea lanulosa (see A. millefolium) Yarrow; Milfoil

28. Tanacetum Tansy

 2. Tanacetum huronense Lake Huron Tansy; Agolden buttons@

35. Bellis

 1. Bellis perennis English Daisy

50. Rudbeckia Coneflower; Rudbeckia

 5. Rudbeckia hirta Black-eyed Susan

Group C

55. Eupatoriu

4. Eupatorium perfoliatum Boneset

Seney NWR Herbarium1 (Continued)

Taxonomy Common Name
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

152

56. Senecio

9. Senecio pauperculus Northern Ragwort

58. Euthamia

 1. Euthamia graminifolia (see Voss=description 

of Solidago, p.460) 

Flat-topped, Bushy, or Grass-leaved Goldenrod

59. Solidago Goldenrod

 * Solidago graminifolia (see Euthamia graminifolia)

10. Solidago canadensis Canada Goldenrod

13. Solidago rugosa Rough-leaved Goldenrod

19. Solidago hispida Hairy Goldenrod

20. Solidago uliginsa Bog Goldenrod

65. Erigeron Fleabane

 7. Erigeron strigosus Daisy Fleabane

66. Aster Aster

 2. Aster macrophyllus Large- or Big-leaved Aster

 9. Aster laevis Smooth Aster

 19. Aster umbellatus Flat-topped Aster

 21. Aster pilosus Frost Aster

 28. Aster lanceolatus Panicled Aster

67. Arctium Burdock

2. Arctium minus Common Burdock

68. Centaurea Star-thistle; Knapweed

2. Centaurea maculosa Spotted Knapweed

 3. Centaurea diffusa White-flower or Tumble Knapweed

71. Carduus Plumeless Thistle

 1. Carduus nutans Nodding or Musk Thistle

72. Cirsium Thistle

 2. Cirsium vulgare Bull Thistle

 4. Cirsium muticum Swamp Thistle

 5. Cirsium arvense Canada or Field Thistle

75. Anaphalis

 1. Anaphalis margaritacea Pearly Everlasting

Seney NWR Herbarium1 (Continued)

Taxonomy Common Name
Appendix C: Species Lists

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

153

76. Gnaphalium Cudweed

 4. Gnaphalium macounii Clammy Cudweed

80. Conyz

1. Conyza canadensis Horseweed

1. All family-level numbering follows Gray's Manual of Botany; taxonomy and nomenclature according to Voss 

Michigan Flora, Parts 1-3.

Seney NWR Herbarium1 (Continued)

Taxonomy Common Name

Appendix D: Compatibility Determinations

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

155

Appendix D: Compatibility Determinations

In accordance with the Refuge Improvement Act of 

1997, no uses for which the Service has authority to 

regulate may be allowed on a unit of Refuge System 

unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use that, in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, 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. Managers 

must complete a written compatibility determination for each use, or collection of like-uses, that is 

signed by the manager and the Regional Chief of 

Refuges in the respective Service region. 

Draft compatibility determinations applicable to 

uses described in the CCP were included in the 

Draft CCP and available for a 30-day review period. 

The signed compatibility determinations are available for review at Refuge Headquarters. Compatibility determinations were prepared and approved 

for:

#Hunting

#Fishing

#Wildlife Observation and Photography

#Environmental Education and Interpretation

#Research

#Haying

#Mushroom and Berry Picking

Appendix E: Priority Refuge Operations and Maintenance Costs

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

157

Appendix E: Priority Refuge Operations and 

Maintenance Costs

Appendix E: Priority Refuge Operations and Maintenance Costs

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

159

Appendix E: Priority Refuge Operational and Maintenance Needs

Chapter 5 of the CCP contains a listing and 

description of the priority operational and maintenance needs of the Seney National Wildlife Refuge.

Appendix F: Compliance Requirements

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

161

Appendix F: Compliance Requirements

Appendix F: Compliance Requirements

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

163

Appendix F: Compliance Requirements

Rivers and Harbor Act (1899) (33 U.S.C. 403)

Section 10 of this Act requires the authorization 

by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to 

any work in, on, over, or under a navigable water 

of the United States.

Antiquities Act of 1906. 16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.

Authorizes the scientific investigation of antiquities on Federal land and provides penalties for 

unauthorized removal of objects taken or collected without a permit.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq. 

Designates the protection of migratory birds as a 

Federal responsibility. This Act enables the setting of seasons, and other regulations including 

the closing of areas, Federal or non Federal, to 

the hunting of migratory birds.

Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715 et 

seq. 

Establishes procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, or gift of areas approved by the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Commission.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 16 U.S.C. 661 et 

seq. (1934)

Requires that the Fish and Wildlife Service and 

State fish and wildlife agencies be consulted 

whenever water is to be impounded, diverted or 

modified under a Federal permit or license. The 

Service and State agency recommend measures 

to prevent the loss of biological resources, or to 

mitigate or compensate for the damage. The project proponent must take biological resource values into account and adopt justifiable protection 

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

to the Nation and to require equal consideration 

and coordination of wildlife conservation with 

other water resources development programs. It 

also authorized the Secretary of Interior to provide public fishing areas and accept donations of 

lands and funds.

Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act. Also known as 

the Duck Stamp Act, 16 U.S.C. 718 et seq. (1934) 

Requires every waterfowl hunter 16 years of age 

or older to carry a stamp and earmarks proceeds 

of the 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.

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act. Also 

known as the Historic Sites Act of 1935, 16 U.S.C. 

461 et seq.

Declares it a national policy to preserve historic 

sites and objects of national significance, including those located on refuges. Provides procedures 

for designation, acquisition, administration, and 

protection of such sites.

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act,16 U.S.C. 715s (1935)

 Requires revenue sharing provisions to all feetitle ownerships that are administered solely or 

primarily by the Secretary through the Service.

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife 

Conservation Purposes Act, 16 U.S.C. 667b-667d 

(1948)

Provides that upon a determination by the 

Administrator of the General Services Administration, real property no longer needed by a Federal agency can be transferred without 

reimbursement to the Secretary of Interior if the 

land has particular value for migratory birds, or 

to a State agency for other wildlife conservation 

purposes.

Federal Records Act of 1950, 44 U.S.C. 31

Directs the preservation of evidence of the government's organization, functions, policies, decisions, operations, and activities, as well as basic 

historical and other information.
Appendix F: Compliance Requirements

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

164

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742a et seq. 

Established a comprehensive national fish and 

wildlife policy and broadened the authority for 

acquisition and development of refuges.

Refuge Recreation Act, 16 U.S.C. 460k et seq. (1962)

Allows the use of refuges for recreation when 

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

available to manage the uses.

Wilderness Act of 1964, 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.

Directed the Secretary of Interior, within 10 

years, to review every roadless area of 5,000 or 

more acres and every roadless island (regardless 

of size) within National Wildlife Refuge and 

National Park Systems and to recommend to the 

President the suitability of each such area or 

island for inclusion in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System, with final decisions made 

by Congress. The Secretary of Agriculture was 

directed to study and recommend suitable areas 

in the National Forest System.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, 16 

U.S.C. 460 et seq.

 Uses the receipts from the sale of surplus Federal land, outer continental shelf oil and gas sales, 

and other sources for land acquisition under several authorities.

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. 668dd, 668ee

Defines the National Wildlife Refuge System and 

authorizes the Secretary to permit any use of a 

refuge provided such use is compatible with the 

major purposes for which the refuge was established. The Refuge Improvement Act clearly 

defines a unifying mission for the Refuge System; 

establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of 

the six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation); establishes a 

formal process for determining compatibility; 

established the responsibilities of the Secretary 

of Interior for managing and protecting the System; and requires a Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan for each refuge by the year 2012. This Act 

amended portions of the Refuge Recreation Act 

and National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966.

National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470 et 

seq. (1966)

Establishes as policy that the Federal Government is to provide leadership in the preservation 

of the nation's prehistoric and historic resources. 

Section 106 requires Federal agencies to consider 

impacts their undertakings could have on historic 

properties; 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 to 

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.

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4151 et 

seq.

Requires federally owned, leased, or funded 

buildings and facilities to be accessible to persons 

with disabilities.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.

Requires the disclosure of the environmental 

impacts of any major Federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human environment.

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 

Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. 4601 et 

seq. 

 Provides for uniform and equitable treatment of 

persons who sell their homes, businesses, or 

farms to the Service. The Act requires that any 

purchase offer be no less than the fair market 

value of the property.

Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq. 

Requires all Federal agencies to carry out programs for the conservation of endangered and 

threatened species.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.

Requires programmatic accessibility in addition 

to physical accessibility for all facilities and programs funded by the Federal government to 

ensure that anybody can participate in any program.
Appendix F: Compliance Requirements

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

165

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act 16 

U.S.C.469-469c

Directs the preservation of historic and archaeological data in Federal construction projects.

Clean Water Act of 1977, 33 U.S.C. 1251

Requires consultation with the Corps of Engineers (404 permits) for major wetland modifications.

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 

1977, 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.

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.

Executive Order 11988 (1977)

Each Federal agency shall provide leadership 

and take action to reduce the risk of flood loss 

and minimize the impact of floods on human 

safety, and preserve the natural and beneficial 

values served by the floodplains.

Executive Order 11990

Executive Order 11990 directs Federal agencies 

to (1) minimize destruction, loss, or degradation 

of wetlands and (2) preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands when a 

practical alternative exists.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review 

of Federal Programs)

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

for review.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 42 U.S.C. 

1996, 1996a (1976)

Directs agencies to consult with native traditional 

religious leaders to determine appropriate policy 

changes necessary to protect and preserve American Indian religious cultural rights and practices.

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978, 16 

U.S.C. 742a 

 Improves the administration of fish and wildlife 

programs and amends several earlier laws including the Refuge Recreation Act, the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, and 

the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It authorizes 

the Secretary to accept gifts and bequests of real 

and personal property on behalf of the United 

States. It also authorizes the use of volunteers on 

Service projects and appropriations to carry out 

a volunteer program.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, 

16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq.

Protects materials of archaeological interest from 

unauthorized removal or destruction and 

requires Federal managers to develop plans and 

schedules to locate archaeological resources.

Farmland Protection Policy Act, Public Law 97-98, 

7 U.S.C. 4201 (1981)

Minimizes the extent to which Federal programs 

contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible 

conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses.

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, 16 

U.S.C. 3901 et seq.

Promotes the conservation of migratory waterfowl and offsets or prevents the serious loss of 

wetlands by the acquisition of wetlands and other 

essential habitats. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, 7 U.S.C. 2801 et 

seq.

Requires the use of integrated management systems to control or contain undesirable plant species, and an interdisciplinary approach with the 

cooperation of other Federal and State agencies.

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq. (1990)

Requires Federal agencies and museums to 

inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate 

cultural items under their control or possession.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 

12101 et seq.

Prohibits discrimination in public accommodations and services.
Appendix F: Compliance Requirements

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

166

Executive Order 12898 (1994)

Establishes environmental justice as a Federal 

government priority and directs all Federal agencies to make environmental justice part of their 

mission. Environmental justice calls for fair distribution of environmental hazards.

Executive Order 12996 Management and General 

Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

(1996)

Defines the mission, purpose, and priority public 

uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. It 

also presents four principles to guide management of the System.

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites (1996)

Directs Federal land management agencies to 

accommodate access to and ceremonial use of 

Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites, and where appropriate, 

maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997, 16 U.S.C. 668dd 

Considered the “Organic Act of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. Defines the mission of 

the System, designates priority wildlife-dependent public uses, and calls for comprehensive refuge planning. Section 6 requires the Service to 

make a determination of compatibility of existing, 

new and changing uses of Refuge land; and Section 7 requires the Service to identify and 

describe the archaeological and cultural values of 

the refuge.

National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and 

Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 

1998, 16 U.S.C. 742a Amends the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to promote volunteer programs 

and community partnerships for the benefit of 

national wildlife refuges, and for other purposes.

National Trails System Act, 16 U.S.C. 1241 et seq. 

(1968)

Assigns responsibility to the Secretary of Interior and thus the Service to protect the historic 

and recreational values of congressionally designated National Historic Trail sites. 

Treasury and General Government Appropriations 

Act, Pub. L. 106-554, §1(a)(3), Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 

2763, 2763A–125

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 (OMB) 

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.

Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Section 6, requires the Service 

to make a determination of compatibility of existing, new and changing uses of Refuge land; and 

Section 7 requires the Service to identify and 

describe the archaeological and cultural values of 

the refuge.

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 

Section 106, requires Federal agencies to consider impacts their undertakings could have on 

historic properties; 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.

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 

1979 (ARPA) prohibits unauthorized disturbance 

of archeological resources on Federal and Indian 

land; and related matters. Section 10 requires 

establishing “a program to increase public awareness” of archeological resources. Section 14 

requires plans to survey lands and a schedule for 

surveying lands with “the most scientifically valuable archaeological resources.” This Act requires 

protection of all archeological sites more than 100 

years old (not just sites meeting the criteria for 

the National Register) on Federal land, and 
Appendix F: Compliance Requirements

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

167

requires archeological investigations on Federal 

land be performed in the public interest by qualified persons.

The Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) imposes 

responsibilities which may result in serious 

delays on a project when human remains or other 

cultural items are encountered in the absence of a 

plan.

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

(AIRFA) iterates the right of Native Americans 

to free exercise of traditional religions and use of 

sacred places.

EO 13007, Indian Sacred Sites (1996), directs 

Federal agencies to accommodate access to and 

ceremonial use, to avoid adverse effects and avoid 

blocking access, and to enter into early consultation.

Appendix G: Research History at Seney NWR

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

169

Appendix G: Research History at Seney NWR

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

171

Author(s) Last Name Author(s) 

First/

Middle 

Initials

Year Title Publisher Volume

(Issue):

Page 

Number

.

Walkinshaw L.H. 1937 Le Conte's Sparrow Breeding in 

Michigan and South Dakota.

Auk 54(3):309-

320

Sypulski J.L. 1941 Stomach Collections and Records. Unpublished, Seney 

NWR

Sypulski J.L. 1943 The Seney Bulrush Picker. Journal of Wildlife 

Management

7:230-231

Johnson C.S. 1947 Canada Goose Management, Seney 

National Wildlife Refuge.

Journal of Wildlife Management

11(1):21-24

Beard (Losey) E.B. 1953 The Importance of Beaver in Waterfowl 

Management at the Seney National Wildlife Refuge.

Journal of Wildlife Management

17(4):398-436

Lagler K.F. 1956 The Pike, Esox lucius (Linnaeus), in 

Relation to Waterfowl on the Seney National Wildlife Refuge, Michigan.

Journal of Wildlife Management

20(2):114-124

Sherwood G.A. 1963 A Study of Family Group Relationships 

and Breeding Behavior in a Wild Population of Canada Geese.

Unk. 

Sherwood G.A. 1963 A Critical Evaluation of Some Possible 

Limiting Factors of the Seney Goose Flock.

Unk. 

Beard (Losey) E.B. 1964 Duck Brood Behavior at the Seney 

National Wildlife Refuge.

Journal of Wildlife Management

28(3):492-521

Heinselman M.L. 1965 String Bogs and Other Patterned Organic 

Terrain Near Seney, Upper Michigan.

Ecology 46(1,2):185-

188

Sherwood G.A. 1965 Recent Modifications in Banding 

Equipment for Canada Geese.

Journal of Wildlife Management

29(3):640-643
172

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Sherwood G.A. 1965 Canada Geese of the Seney National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Management Studies 1 & 2. 222 pp. Sherwood G.A. 1966 Canada Geese of the Seney National Wildlife Refuge. Utah State University, Logan, Utah Ph.D. Dissertation Tarshis I.B. 1966 A Pesticide Suit for Aquatic Research. Journal of Wildlife 

Management

30(2):421-422

Tarshis I.B. 1966 A Method of Shipping Live Larvae of 

Simulium vittatum Long Distances.

Annals of the Entomological Society 

of America

59(4):866-867

Sherwood G.A. 1967 Behavior of Family Groups of Canada 

Geese.

In: Transactions of the 32nd North American 

Wildlife Conference

pp. 340-355 

Tarshis I.B. 1968 Collecting and Rearing Black Flies. Annals of the 

Entomological Society of America

61(5):1072-1083

Tarshis I.B. 1968 Use of Fabrics in Streams to Collect 

Black Fly Larvae.

Annals of the Entomological Society 

of America

61(4):960-961

Fjetland C.A. 1969 Waterfowl Use and Preference of Seney 

NWR Pools.

Michigan State Univ.? 

Palmer, Trainer S.F., D.O. 1969 Serological Study of Some Infectious 

Diseases of Canada Geese.

Bulletin Wildlife Disease Association

5:260-266

Sarvis J.E. 1969 A Survey of the Status of the Ringnecked Duck on the Seney NWR. Utah State University, Logan, UT Report Field R.J. 1970 Winter Habits of the River Otter, Lutra 

canadensis, in Michigan.

Michigan Academician 3(1):49-58

Author(s) Last Name Author(s) 

First/

Middle 

Initials

Year Title Publisher Volume

(Issue):

Page 

Number

.

o
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

173

Field R.J. 1970 A Comparison of the Activities of the 

River Otter (Lutra canadensis) in Two Types of Ecological Habitats.

Michigan State University, East 

Lansing, MI

M.S. Thesis 

Field R.J. 1970 Scavengers Feeding on a Michigan Deer 

Carcass.

Jack Pine Warbler 48(2):73 

Fjetland C.A. 1970 Long Term Survival of Plastic Collars on 

Geese.

In: Fourth Canada Goose Ecology 

Seminar, Kellogg Sanctuary, Battle Creek, MI 

Palmer, Trainer S.F., D.O. 1970 Serological Evidence of Newcastle 

Disease Virus in Canada Geese.

Avian Diseases 14(3):494-

502

Tarhis, Neil I.B., W. 1970 Mass Movement of Black Fly Larvae on 

Silken Threads.

Annals of the Entomological Society 

of America

63(2):607-610

Wilbrecht J.E. 1970 Status of Seney Goose Population. In: Fourth Canada 

Goose Ecology 

Seminar, Kellogg Sanctuary, Battle Creek, MI 

Faber, Hickey R.A., J.J. 1971 Insecticides, PCB's and Mercury in 

Inland Aquatic Bird Eggs.

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center 

Laurel, MD

pp.1-16 

Sarvis J.E. 1972 The Breeding Biology and Ecology of the 

Ring-necked Duck in Northern Michigan.

Utah State University, Logan, UT

M.S. Thesis 

Stuht J. N. 1972 A Study to Determine the Effect of 

Leucocytozoon bonasae on the Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus) in Michigan.

MDNR? 

Author(s) Last Name Author(s) 

First/

Middle 

Initials

Year Title Publisher Volume

(Issue):

Page 

Number

.
174

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Fjetland C.A. 1973 History of Water Management at the Seney National Wildlife Refuge. Department of Resource Development, Michigan State 

University, East 

Lansing, MI 

M.S. Thesis 

Corin C.W. 1975 Ecology of the Terrestrial Vertebrate 

Fauna of the Huron Islands, Lake Superior.

Department of Biology, Northern Michigan 

University, Marquette, MI

M.S. Thesis 

Herman, Barrow, Tarshis C.M., J.H. 

Jr., I.B.

1975 Leucocytozoonosis in Canada Geese at 

the Seney National Wildlife Refuge.

Journal of Wildlife Diseases

11:404–411

Shugart, Scharf, Cuthbert G.W., W.C., 

F.J.

1979 Status and Reproductive Success of the 

Caspian Tern (Sterna caspia) in the U.S. 

Great Lakes. 

Colonial Waterbirds 2:146-156

Skutek S.A. 1980 Preliminary Investigations of Sandhill 

Crane Feather Analysis.

College of Natural Resources, University 

of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI

M.S. Thesis 

Anderson S.H. 1982 Effects of the 1976 Seney National 

Wildlife Refuge Wildfire on Wildlife and 

Wildlife Habitat.

USDOI, Fish & Wildlife Service

Resource Publication 

146

Stenzel J.R. 1983 Ecology of Breeding Yellow Rails at 

Seney National Wildlife Refuge

Department of Zoology, The Ohio 

State University, Columbus, OH

M.S. Thesis 

Bart, Stehn, Herrick, Heaslip, Bookhout, Stenzel

J., R.A., J.A., N.A., T.A., J.A.

1984 Survey Methods for Breeding Yellow 

Rails.

Journal of Wildlife 

Management

48(4):1382-1386

Author(s) Last Name Author(s) 

First/

Middle 

Initials

Year Title Publisher Volume

(Issue):

Page 

Number

.

o
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

175

Cuthbert F.J. 1985 Intraseasonal Movement Between 

Colony Sites by Caspian Terns in the Great Lakes. 

Wilson Bulletin 97(4):502-

510

Bookout, Stenzel T.A., J.R. 1987 Habitat and Movement of Breeding 

Yellow Rails.

Wilson Bulletin 99(3):441-

447

McMillen J.L. 1987 Evaluation of the Seney National Wildlife 

Refuge as a Reintroduction Site for Whooping Cranes.

Ohio Co-Op U.S. Fish and Wildlife Unit, 

Columbus, OH

Final Report

Bowerman W. 1988 Survey of Xenobiotics in Biota on Seney 

NWR.

Ohio Co-Op Fish and Wildlife Unit, 

Columbus, Ohio

Bowerman W. 1989 Bald Eagle Ecology and Aquatic 

Ecosystems at Seney NWR.

Michigan State University, East 

Lansing, Michigan

Ph.D. Dissertation?

Urbanek R.P. 1990 Behavior and Survival of Captive-Reared 

Juvenile Sandhill Cranes Introduced by Gentle Release into a Migratory Flock of Sandhill Cranes.

Ohio Co-Op Fish & Wildlife Research 

Unit, Columbus, OH

Final Report

Urbanek, McMillen, Bookout

R.P., J.L., T.A.

1991 Rocket-Netting Greater Sandhill Cranes 

on Their Breeding Grounds at Seney 

National Wildlife Refuge.

In: Harris JT, ed. 1991. Proceedings 1987 International Crane 

Workshop; Qiqihar, 1-10 May 1987, Heilongjiang Prov, China. Baraboo, WI 

International Crane 

Foundation:241-45

Evers D.C. 1992 Population Ecology of the Common Loon 

at the Seney National Wildlife Refuge, Seney, Michigan: Results from the First Color-marked Breeding Population.

In: American Loon Conference 

Proceedings

12:202-212

Author(s) Last Name Author(s) 

First/

Middle 

Initials

Year Title Publisher Volume

(Issue):

Page 

Number

.
176

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Urbanek, Bookhout R.P., T.A. 1992 Development of an Isolation-Reared Gentle Release Procedure for Reintroducing Migratory Cranes. In: Proceedings of the North American Crane Workshop 6:120-130 Urbanek, Bookhout R.P., T.A. 1992 Nesting of Greater Sandhill Cranes on Seney National Wildlife Refuge. In: Proceedings of the 1988 North American Crane Workshop (D.A. Wood, ed.). Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Comm., Nongame 

Wildlife 

Program Technical Report No. 12: 161-172

Burkman M. 1993 The Use of Prescribed Fire to Enhance 

Nesting Habitat for Yellow Rails at Seney 

National Wildlife Refuge.

Department of Biology, Northern Michigan 

University, Marquette, MI

M.S. Thesis

Evers D.C. 1993 Population Ecology of the Common Loon 

at the Seney National Wildlife Refuge, 

Michigan: Results from the First Colormarked Breeding Population.

In: L. Morse, S. Stockwell, and M. 

Pokras (eds.). Proc. 1992 Conference on the Loon and its Ecosystem: Status, management, and environmental concerns. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Concord, NH. 247pp.

pp. 202-213 

Duan W. 1994 Social and Reproductive Behavior of 

Isolation-Reared Released Sandhill Cranes (Grus canadensis).

Department of Zoology, The Ohio 

State University, Columbus, OH

M.S. Thesis 

Urbanek, Bookhout R.P., T.A. 1994 Performance of Captive-reared Cranes 

Released into a Migration Route in 

Eastern North America.

In: The Future of Cranes and Wetlands

Wild Bird Societ

y

Author(s) Last Name Author(s) 

First/

Middle 

Initials

Year Title Publisher Volume

(Issue):

Page 

Number

.

o
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

177

Baker, Cade, Mangus, McMillan

B.W., B.S., W.L., J.L.

1995 Spatial Analysis of Sandhill Crane 

Nesting Habitat.

Journal of Wildlife 

Management

59(4):752-758

Duan, Bookhout, Urbanek W., T.A., 

R.P.

1996 Home Range and Habitat Use by 

Isolation-Reared Sandhill Cranes.

In: Proceedings of the Seventh North 

American Crane Workshop. North American Crane Working Group. Biloxi, MS

pp. 72-78

Lishman, Teets, Duff, Sladen, Shire, Goolsby, 

Kerr, Urbanek

W.A., T.L., J.W., W.J.L., 

G.G., K.M., W.A.B., R.P.

1996 A Reintroduction Technique for 

Migratory Birds - Leading Canada Geese 

and Isolation-reared Sandhill Cranes with Ultralight Aircraft.

In: Proceedings of the Seventh North 

American Crane Workshop. North American Crane Working Group. Biloxi, MS

pp.. 96-104 

Duan, Bookout W., T.A. 1997 Breeding Behavior of Isolation-Reared 

Sandhill Cranes. 

Journal of Field Ornithology

68(2):200-207

Evers, Kaplan, Reaman, Paruk, Phifer

D.C., J.D., P.S., J.D., P.

1997 Demographic Characteristics of the 

Common Loon in the Upper Great Lakes.

In: Proceedings of Symposium of American Ornithologists' Union, 

115th Meeting, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN

Frandsen W.R. 1997 Ignition Probability of Organic Soils. Canadian Journal of 

Forest Research

27:1471-1477

Author(s) Last Name Author(s) 

First/

Middle 

Initials

Year Title Publisher Volume

(Issue):

Page 

Number

.
178

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Walcott, Evers C., D. 1997 Loon Vocal Tagging: An Evaluation of its Feasibility using a Banded Population of Loons. In: Symposium of American Ornithologists' Union, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MinnesotaEvers, Kaplan, Meyer, Reaman, Braselton, Major, Burgess, Scheuhammer

D.C., J.D., M.W., P.S., W.E., A., N., A.M.

1998 Geographic Trend in Mercury Measured 

in Common Loon Feathers and Blood.

Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry

17(2):173-183

Crozier G.E. 1999 Using Local Patch and Landscape 

Variables to Model Bird Abundance in a 

Naturally Heterogeneous Landscape.

University of Minnesota-Duluth, 

Duluth, MN

M.S. Thesis 

Stuht, Bowerman, Best J.N., W.W., 

D.A.

1999 Leucocytozoonosis in Nestling Bald 

Eagles in Michigan and Minnesota.

Journal of Wildlife Diseases

35(3):608–

612

Walcott, Evers C., D. 1999 Individuality in "Yodel" Calls Recorded 

from a Banded Population of Common 

Loons, Gavia immer.

Bioacoustics 10:101-114 

Evers D.C. 2000 An Update of North America’s Common 

Loon Breeding Population.

 In: J.W. McIntyre and D.C. Evers (eds.). Loons: Old Jistory and 

New Findings. Proc.of a symposium from the 1997 meeting, American Ornithologists’ Union. North American Loon Fund, Holderness, NH.

pp. 91-94 

Author(s) Last Name Author(s) 

First/

Middle 

Initials

Year Title Publisher Volume

(Issue):

Page 

Number

.

o
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

179

Kaplan, Tischler J. D., K. B. 2000 Mercury Exposure in the Common Loon 

(Gavia immer) at Isle Royale National Park, Michigan

Project Report 13 pp. 

Kowalski K.P. 2000 Analysis of Wetland Plant Communities 

and Environmental Conditions. A Wetland Restoration Project in Seney National Wildlife Refuge.

Department of Geography and 

Geology, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI

M.S. Thesis 

Sweat M.J. 2001 Hydrology of C-3 Watershed, Seney 

National Wildlife Refuge, Michigan.

US Geological Survey, Lansing, MI

WaterResources 

Investigatio

n 01-4053

Evers, Lane, De Sorbo, Savoy

D.C., O.P., 

C., L.

2002 Assessing the Impacts of Methylmercury 

on Piscivorous Wildlife Using a Wildlife Criterion Value Based on the Common Loon, 1998-2001.

Report BRI 2002-08 56 pp. 

Kaplan, Tischler, McCormick

J.D., K.B., D.L.

2002 A Breeding Atlas of Common Loon 

(Gavia immer) at Isle Royale National Park, Michigan.

Project Report 29 pp. 

Seong, Lucas J.C., A.C. 2002 Characterizing Human Impacts on 

Wetlands Using Satellite Imagery at Seney, Michigan, USA.

The Geographical Journal of Korea

36(1):51-61

Swanson K.A. 2002 Movement, Survival, and Habitat 

Relationships of Snowshoe Hare 

Following Release in Northeast Ohio

The Ohio State University, Columbus, 

OH

M.S. Thesis 

(Trudgeon) Kainulainin L. 2003 Cover Map Accuracy Assessment and 

Identification of Important Beaver Habitat Variables at Seney National Wildlife Refuge.

Department of Biology, Northern Michigan 

University, Marquette, MI

M.S. Thesis 

Author(s) Last Name Author(s) 

First/

Middle 

Initials

Year Title Publisher Volume

(Issue):

Page 

Number

.
180

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Bowerman W.W. 2003 Bald Eagles, Woodland Raptors, and Other Studies Associated with Wildlife Ecology and Toxicology: Results from 1985-2003. Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Clemson University, Clemson, SC Report to CooperatorsCrozier, Niemi G.E., G.J. 2003 Using Local Patch and Landscape 

Variables to Model Bird Abundance in a 

Naturally Heterogeneous Landscape.

Canadian Journal of Zoology

81:441-452

Evers, Taylor, Major, Taylor, Poppenga, Scheuhammer

D.C., K.M., A., R. J., R. H., A. M.

2003 Common Loon Eggs as Indicators of 

Methylmercury Availability in North 

America.

Ecotoxicology 12:69-81

Hartwig T. J. 2003 A Population Survey and Habitat 

Assessment of Secretive Marsh Birds in 

Seney National Wildlife Refuge.

Department of Biology, Northern Michigan 

University, Marquette, MI

M.S. Thesis 

Kowalski, Wilcox K., D. 2003 Differences in Sedge Fen Vegetation 

Upstream and Downstream from a Managed Impoundment.

The American Midland Naturalist 

150(2):199-220

Mueller, Burk, Bolstad, Schomaker

B.D., T.E., P.V., J.H.

2003 Construction of a Geographic 

Information System for Wildlife Refuge 

Planning: Seney National Wildlife Refuge.

Department of Forest Resources, College of Natural Resources, Minnesota 

Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN

Staff Paper Series No. 169

Author(s) Last Name Author(s) 

First/

Middle 

Initials

Year Title Publisher Volume

(Issue):

Page 

Number

.

o
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

181

Sheesley, Schauer R.J., J.J. 2004 Source Apportionment of Atmospheric 

Fine Particulate Matter Collected at the Seney National Wildlife Refuge.

Environmental Chemistry and 

Technology Program, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 

UWProposal #89517

Sheesely, Schauer, Bean, Kenski

R.J., J.J., E., D.

2004 Trends in Secondary Organic Aerosol at a 

Remote Site in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. 

Environmental Science and Technology

38(24):6491-6500

Nagel L.M. 2005 Integrating Firebreaks into an Ecological 

Framework for Forested Ecosystem Management at Seney National Wildlife Refuge.

School of Forest Resources and 

Environmental Science, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI

Neff, Weaver, Wydra B.P., T.L., 

D.G.

2005 Changes in Streamflow Patterns Related 

to Hydrologic Restoration of a Sedge Fen 

Wetland in Seney National Wildlife Refuge, Michigan, 1998-2004.

USDOI, USGS, Denver, CO 

Scientific Investigatio

ns Report 2005-5137

Timmer D.R. 2005 Small Mammal Community Response to 

Prescribed Burns in Seney National Wildlife Refuge.

School of Natural Resources and 

Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

M.S. Thesis 

Walcott, Mager, Piper C., J. N., W. 2005 Changing Territories, Changing Tunes: 

Male Loons, Gavia immer, Change Their Vocalizations When They Change Territories.

Animal Behaviour 71:673-683

Author(s) Last Name Author(s) 

First/

Middle 

Initials

Year Title Publisher Volume

(Issue):

Page 

Number

.
182

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Baetsen, Heuvelhorst, Casselman R., B., T. 2005 Nesting of the Great Gray Owl, Seney National Wildlife Refuge, Schoolcraft County, Michigan. Michigan Birds and Natura History 12(1):2-5 Corace, Lundrigan, Myers R.G.,III, B., P. 2006 Nest Site Habitat Characteristics and Prey Use of a Breeding Pair of Great Gray Owls in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. The Passenger Pigeon 68(4):353- 360Corace, McCormick, Cavalieri

R.G. III, D.L., V.

2006 Population Growth Parameters of a 

Reintroduced Trumpeter Swan Flock, 

Seney National Wildlife Refuge, Michigan, USA (1991-2004).

Waterbirds 29(1):38-42

Harrington E. 2006 Small Mammals, Habitat, and Forest 

Restoration at Seney National Wildlife 

Refuge.

School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of 

Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

M.S. Thesis

Nagel L.M. 2006 Integrating Fire Breaks into an 

Ecological Framework for Forested 

Ecosystem Management at Seney National Wildlife Refuge.

School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science, Michigan 

Technological University, Houghton, MI

Final Report

Wilcox, Sweat, Carlson, Kowalski

D.A., M.J., M.L., K.P.

2006 A Water-Budget Approach to Restoring a 

Sedge Fen Affected by Diking and 

Ditching.

Journal of Hydrology 320:501-517

Davis D.D. 2007 Ozone Injury to Plants within the Seney 

National Wildlife Refuge in Northern 

Michigan.

Northeastern Naturalist

14(3):415-424

Author(s) Last Name Author(s) 

First/

Middle 

Initials

Year Title Publisher Volume

(Issue):

Page 

Number

.

o
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

183

Losey, Deemer, Corace E.B., B.R., 

R.G.,III

2007 History of Sharp-tailed Grouse 

(Tympanuchus phasianellus) at Seney National Wildlife Refuge and 

Surrounding Areas, Schoolcraft County, Michigan.

Passenger Pigeon 69:339-348

Mager, Walcott, Evers J.N. III, 

C., D.

2007 Macrogeographic Variation in the Body 

Size and Territorial Vocalizations of Male Common Loons (Gavia immer).

Waterbirds 30(1):64-72

Gibson, Enander J.M., H. 2007 Grassland Bird Surveys in Support of the 

Michigan Breeding Bird Atlas II: Final Report.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division, 

Natural Heritage Program

Report Number 2007-20

Nagel, Corace, Storer L.M., R.G. 

III, A.J.

2008 An Experimental Approach to Testing 

the Efficacy of Management Treatments 

for Glossy Buckthorn (Frangula alnus) at Seney National Wildlife Refuge, Upper Michigan.

Ecological Restoration 26(2):136-

142

Corace, Leister, Brosnan R.G.,III, 

K.P., B

2008 Efficacy of Different Glyphosate 

Concentrations in Managing Glossy Buckthorn (Frangula alnus L.) Resprouts at Seney National Wildlife Refuge, Upper Michigan.

Ecological Restoration 26(2):unkno

wn pg. number

Evers D. C. ? A Replicable Capture Method for Adult 

and Juvenile Common Loons on Their Nesting Lakes.

In: American Loon Conference 

Proceedings, Publication # 13

pp. 214-219 

Author(s) Last Name Author(s) 

First/

Middle 

Initials

Year Title Publisher Volume

(Issue):

Page 

Number

.
184

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Tempel, Cilimburg, Wright D., A., V. 2002? The Status and Management of Invasive Species in National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness Areas. Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute http:// leopold.wild erness.net/ research/ invasives/ invaders.ht

m

USFWS, R3 2003-2005 Nationwide Abnormal Amphibian 

Monitoring Project, Region 3. 

Minneapolis, MN Interim 

Report

Myers, Lundrigan, Hoffman, Haraminac, Seto

P., B.L., S., A.P., S.H.

In Review (2008)

Climate-Induced Changes in the Small Mammal Communities of the Northern

Great Lakes.

Global Change Biology

Drobyshev, Goebel, Hix, Corace, Semko-Duncan

I. P.C., D.M., R.G. III, M.

In Review (2008)

Interactions Between Forest Composition, Structure, Fuel Loadings 

and Fire History: A Case Study of Red Pine-Dominated Forests of Seney National Wildlife Refuge. 

Forest Ecology and Management

Drobyshev, Goebel, Hix, Corace, Semko-Duncan

I. P.C., D.M., R.G. III, M.

In Press (2008)

Pre- and Post-European Settlement Fire History of Red Pine-Dominated Forest 

Ecosystems of Seney National Wildlife Refuge, Upper Michigan.

Canadian Journal of Forest Research

Author(s) Last Name Author(s) 

First/

Middle 

Initials

Year Title Publisher Volume

(Issue):

Page 

Number

.

o
Appendix H: Mailing List

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

185

Appendix H: Mailing List

Appendix H: Mailing List

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

187

Appendix H: Mailing List

The following is a list of government offices, private organizations, and individuals who received 

notice of the availability of this CCP. 

Federal Officials

# U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow

# U.S. Senator Carl Levin

# U.S. Representative Bart Stupak

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 Jennifer Granholm 

# Senator Michael Prusi

# Representative Steven Lindberg

State Agencies

# Director, Michigan Department of Natural 

Resources

# Area Managers and Biologists, Michigan 

DNR

# State Historic Preservation Officer, Lansing, 

Michigan

City/County/Local Governments

# City of Germfask, Michigan

# City of Blaney Park, Michigan

# City of Newberry, Michigan

# City of Curtis, Michigan

# City of Seney, Michigan

# Chairman, Schoolcraft County Board of 

Commissioners

Libraries

# Manistique School and Public Library

# Tahquamenon Area Public Library, Newberry

# Peter White Public Library, Marquette

Organizations

# The Nature Conservancy

# National Audubon Society

# Conservation Fund

# Michigan United Conservation Clubs

# Wildlife Management Institute

# Ducks Unlimited

# Michigan Duck Hunters Association

# Great Lakes Commission

# Wildlife Management Institute

# PEER Refuge Keeper

# The Wilderness Society, Washington, D.C.

# National Wildlife Federation, Ann Arbor, 

Michigan

# The Conservation Fund, Arlington, Virgina

Media

Local Radio and TV Stations; Refuge Media Contacts

# Detroit News

# Detroit Free Press

# Michigan Radio News
Appendix H: Mailing List

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

188

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 I: List of Preparers

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

189

Appendix I: List of Preparers

Appendix I: List of Preparers

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

191

Appendix I: List of Preparers

Refuge Staff: 

# Tracy Casselman, Refuge Manager

# Greg Corace, Forester

# Greg McClellan, Deputy Refuge Manager

# Jennifer McDonough, Seasonal Park Ranger

# Dave Olson, Wildlife Biologist

Regional Office Staff:

# Gary Muehlenhardt, Wildlife Biologist/Refuge Planner, Region 3, USFWS

# Gabriel DeAlessio, Biologist-GIS, Region 3, 

USFWS

# John Dobrovolny, Regional Historian, 

Region 3, USFWS (Retired)

# Jane Hodgins, Technical Writer/Editor, 

Region 3, USFWS

Michigan Department of Natural Resources:

# Sherry Martine MacKinnon, Acting Threatened and Endangered Species Coordinator/

Wildlife Ecologist, Eastern Upper Peninsula 

Management Unit

Appendix J: Bibliography and References Cited

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

193

Appendix J: Bibliography and References Cited

Appendix J: Bibliography and References Cited

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

195

Appendix J: Bibliography and References Cited

Albert, D. 1995. Regional landscape ecosystems of 

Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin: a working map and classification. United States Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment 

Station., St. Paul, MN.

Anderson, S.H. 1982. Effects of the 1976 Seney 

National Wildlife Refuge wildfire on wildlife 

and wildlife habitats. U.S. Department of 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Resource 

Publication 146, Washington, D.C.

Askins, R.A. 2000. Restoring North America’s birds: 

lessons from landscape ecology. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

Bergeron, Y., A. Leduc and T. Li. 1991. Explaining 

the distribution of Pinus spp. in a Canadian 

boreal insular landscape. Journal of Vegetation Science 8:37-44.

Best, D.A. 1999. Assessment of mercury in edible 

fish fillets at Seney National Wildlife Refuge. 

Study 3N24. Division of Ecologyical Services, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing, 

MI

Brewer, R., G.A. McPeek and R.J. Adams. 1991. The 

atlas of breeding birds of Michigan. Michigan 

State University Press, East Lansing, MI.

Brosnan, E. and R.G. Corace, III. 2006. A bird’s eye 

view: Seney NWR’s bird species assessment 

and habitat connection. Unpublished manuscript.

Burger, T.L. and J. Kotar. 2003. A guide to forest 

communities and habitat types of Michigan. 

University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI.

Burkman M.A. 1993. The use of fire to manage 

breeding habitat for Yellow Rails [thesis 

(M.S.)]. Northern Michigan University, Marquette, MI. 67 pages. Available from: Olson 

Library, Northern Michigan University, Marquette, MI; QL696.G876 B87 1993

Chace, J.F., C. Farmer, R. Winfree, D.R. Curson, 

W.E. Jensen, C.B. Goguen and S.K. Robinson. 

2005. Cowbird (Molothrus spp.) ecology: a 

review of factors influencing distribution and 

abundance of cowbirds across spatial scales. 

Ornithological Monographs 57:45-70.

Comer, P.J., D.A. Albert, H.A. Wells, B.L. Hart, J.B. 

Raab, D.L. Price, D.M. Kashian, R.A. Corner 

and D.W. Schuen. 1995. Michigan’s native 

landscape. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI.

Corace, R.G., III, K.P. Leister and E. Brosnan. 2008. 

Efficacy of different glyphosate concentrations in managing glossy buckthorn (Frangula 

alnus) resprouts at Seney National Wildlife 

Refuge, Upper Michigan. Ecological Restoration. 25(2) 143.

Corace, R.G. III, P.C. Goebel, and N.E. Seefelt. 

2008. Approaches to forest management at 

National Wildlife Refuges in the Lake States: 

Seney National Wildlife Refuge and Kirtland’s 

Warbler Wildlife Management Area. Forest 

Wisdom, The Forest Guild, Santa Fe, NM.

Corace, R.G. III, D.V. McCormick, and V. Cavalier. 

2006. Population growth parameters of a reintroduced trumpeter swan flock, Seney NWR, 

Michigan (1991-2004). Waterbirds 29: 38-42.

Crozier, G.E. and G.J. Niemi. 2003. Using patch and 

landscape variables to model bird abundance 

in a naturally heterogeneous landscape. Canadian Journal of Zoology 81:441-452.

Dai, X., Boutton, T. W., Hailemichael, M., Ansley, R. 

J., Jessup, K. E. 2006. Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Storage in Response to Fire in a Temperate Mixed-Grass Savanna. J Environ Qual. 35: 

1620-1628.

Dansereau, M., N. Larivie’re, D. Tremblay and D. 

Be’langer. 1999. Reproductive performance of 

two generations of female semidomesticated 

mink fed diets containing organic mercury 

contaminated freshwater fish. Arch. Environ. 

Contam. Toxicol. 36: 221-226

Devine, B. 1999. Clear-cut mission: communities 

unite to free native landscapes from the grip 

of invasive species. Nature Conservancy 

49:12-17.
Appendix J: Bibliography and References Cited

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

196

Dickman, D.I. and L.A. Leefers. 2003. The forests of 

Michigan. University of Michigan Press, Ann 

Arbor, MI.

Drobyshev, I., P.C. Goebel, D.M. Hix, R.G. Corace, 

III and M. Semko-Duncan. In Press. Pre- and 

post-European settlement fire history of red 

pine-dominated forest ecosystems of Seney 

National Wildlife Refuge, Upper Michigan. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research.

Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin and D. Wheye. 1988. The 

birder’s handbook: a field guide to the natural 

history of North American birds. Simon and 

Schuster Inc., New York.

Engstrom, F.B. and D.H. Mann. 1991. Fire ecology 

of red pine (Pinus resinosa) in northern Vermont, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research 21:882-889

Fjetland, C.A. 1973. History of water management 

at the Seney National Wildlife Refuge. M.S. 

Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing. 

Forman, R.T.T. 1995. Land mosaics: the ecology of 

landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

Frehlich, L.E. and P.B. Reich. 1996. Old growth in 

the Great Lakes region. Pp. 144-160 in M.B. 

Davis, ed., Eastern old-growth forests: prospects for rediscovery and recovery. Island 

Press, Washington, D.C.

Frehlich, L.E. 2002. Forest dynamics and disturbance regimes. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, UK.

Harrington, E. 2006. Small mammals, habitat, and 

forest restoration at Seney National Wildlife 

Refuge. Master’s Thesis (Natural Resources 

and Environment), University of Michigan, 

Ann Arbor, MI.

Heinselman, M.L. 1965. String bogs and other patterned organic terrain near Seney, Upper 

Michigan. Ecology 46:185-188.

Holling, C.S. and G.K. Meffe. 1996. Command and 

control and the pathology of natural resource 

management. Conservation Biology 10:328-

337.

Hunter, M. L., Jr. 1990. Wildlife, forests, and forestry. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, 

NJ.

Iverson, L.R., A.M. Prasad, B.J. Hale and E.K. 

Sutherland. 1999. Atlas of current and potential future distributions of common trees of 

the eastern United States. U. S. Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, General 

Technical Report NE-265.

Karamanski, T.J. 1989. Deep woods frontier: a history of logging in northern Michigan. Wayne 

State University Press, Detroit, MI. 305p.

Lambeck, R.J. 1997. Focal species: a multi-species 

umbrella for nature conservation. Conservation Biology 11:849-856.

Laughland, A., and J. Caudill, Ph.D., 1997. Banking 

on nature: The economic benefits to local communities of national wildlife refuge visitation. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Leopold, A. 1933. Game management. University of 

Wisconsin Press, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 

New York, NY.

Loope, W.L. 1991. Interrelationships of fire history, 

land use history, and landscape pattern within 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, Michigan. Canadian Field-Naturalist 105:18-28.

Losey, E.B. 2003. Seney National Wildlife Refuge: 

its history. Lake Superior Press, Marquette, 

MI.

Madison, G. and R. N. Lockwood. 2004. Manistique 

river assessment. Michigan Department of 

Natural Resources, Fisheries Special Report 

31, Ann Arbor.

Matteson, S., A. Paulios, G. Bartelt, G. Butcher, D. 

Sample, J. Fitzgerald, G. Niemi, J. Hanowski 

and R. Howe. In Review. Partner’s in Flight 

Conservation Plan for the Boreal Hardwood 

Transition (Physiographic Area 20 and Bird 

Conservation Region 12, USA).

McCormick, D.L., J.D. Kaplan and K.B. Tischler. 

2006. Mercury exposure in Common Loons at 

Seney NWR. Unpublished manuscript. 27p.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1999. 

Michigan special animals. Lansing, MI.
Appendix J: Bibliography and References Cited

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

197

Nagel, L.M., R.G. Corace, III and A.J. Storer. 2008. 

An experimental approach to testing the efficacy of management treatments for glossy 

buckthorn (Frangula alnus) at Seney National 

Wildlife Refuge, Upper Michigan. Ecological 

Restoration. 25(2) 136-142.

National Research Council Canada. 1985. TFM and 

bayer 73 lampricides in the aquatic environment. NRCC No. 22488. P. 105. 

Noss, R. F. and J. M. Scott. 1997. Ecosystem protection and restoration: the core of ecosystem 

management. Pages 239-264 in M. A. Boyce 

and A. W. Haney, eds. Ecosystem management: concepts and methods. Yale University 

Press, New Haven, CT.

PIF. 2006. Species Assessment Database. Partners 

in Flight. At http://www.rmbo.org/pif/ 

scores/scores.html. Last accessed on 8 

August 2006.

Price, J. 2000. Modeling the potential impacts of climate change on the summer distribution of 

Michigan’s nongame birds. Michigan Birds 

and Natural History 7:3-13.

Rich, T. D., C.J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P.J. 

Blancher, M.S.W. Bradstreet, G.S.Butcher, 

D.W. Demarest and E.H. Dunn. W.C. Hunter, 

E.E. Inigo-Elias, J.A. Kennedy, A.M. Martell, 

A.O. Panjabi, D.N. Pashley, K.V. Rosenberg, 

C.M. Rustay, J.S. Wendt, and T.C. Will. 2004. 

Partners in Flight North American landbird 

conservation plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 

Ithaca, NY.

Root, T. L. and S. H. Schneider. 1995. Ecology and 

climate: research strategies and implications. 

Science 269:334-339.

Root, T.L., J.T. Price, K.R. Hall, S.H. Schneider, C. 

Rosenzweig and J.A. Pounds. 2003. Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and 

plants. Nature 421:57-60.

Sallabanks, R. and E.B. Arnett. 2005. Accomodating 

birds in managed forests in North America: a 

review of bird-forestry relationships. USDA 

Forest Service PSW-GTR-191.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines and J. Fallon. 2005. The 

North American Breeding Bird Survey, 

results and analysis 1966 - 2005. Version 

6.2.2006. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research 

Center, Laurel, MD.

Schuldt, R.J. and R. Gould. 1980. Changes in the 

distribution of native lampreys in Lake Superior tributaries in response to sea lamprey 

(Petromyzon marinus) control, 1953-77. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 37:1872-1885.

Seymour, R.S. and M.L. Hunter, Jr. 1999. Principles 

of Ecological Forestry. Ch. 2 (p. 22-61) In: 

Managing Biodiversity in Forest Ecosystems.

M.L. Hunter, Jr., editor. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Silbernagel, J., J. Chen, M.R. Gale, K.S. Pregitzer, 

and J. Probst. 1997. An interpretation of landscape structure from historic and present land 

cover data in the eastern Upper Peninsula of 

Michigan. United States Forest Service, GTR 

NC-192, St. Paul, MN.

Simard, A.J. and R.W. Blank. 1982. Fire history of a 

Michigan jack pine forest. Michigan Academician 15:59-71. 

Simberloff, D. 1997. Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: is single species management passé in 

the landscape era. Biological Conservation 

83:247-257.

Stevenson, I.R. and D.M. Bryant. 2000. Climate 

change and constraints on breeding. Nature 

406:366-367.

Thompson, I.D., Simard, J.H. and R.D. Titman. 

2006. Historic changes in white pine (Pinus 

strobus L.) density in Algonquin Park, 

Ontario, during the 19th century. Natural 

Areas Journal 26:61-71.

United States Forest Service. 2003. Regional Forester Sensitive Animals. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Fish 

and Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities: Region 3. Fort Snelling, MN.

United States Census Bureau 2005. http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.php

Verme, L.J. 1996. Hiawatha’s brothers. Avanti Publishing, Munising, MI.
Appendix J: Bibliography and References Cited

Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

198

Vogl, R.J. 1970. Fire and the northern Wisconsin 

pine barrens. Proceedings Tall Timbers Fire 

Ecology Conference 10:175-209. 

Whitman, H. and R.G. Corace, III. 2006 (unpub. 

manuscript). Northern hardwood stand 

assessment and evaluation for Seney National 

Wildlife Refuge. Seney National Wildlife Refuge, Seney, MI.

Whitney, G.G. 1986. Relation of Michigan’s pre-settlement forests to substrate and disturbance 

history. Ecology 67:1548-1559.

Wilcox D. A., M. J. Sweat, M. L. Carlson and K. P. 

Kowalski. 2006. A water-budget approach to 

restoring a sedge fen affected by diking and 

ditching. Journal of Hydrology (320): 501-517.

Zhang, Q., K.S. Pregitzer, and D.D. Reed. 1999. Catastrophic disturbance in the presettlement 

forests of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research 29:106-

114.

Zhang, Q., K. S. Pregitzer, and D. D. Reed. 2000. 

Historical changes in the forests of the Luce 

District of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. 

American Midland Naturalist 143:94-110.