Kirtland's Warbler

Wild@ Mq,nagementArea

Gomprehensive Gonservation Plan Approval

Matthew D. Sprenger

Refuge Supervisol Area 2

Thomas C. Wortllington

Acting Regional Chief, National ldlife Refuge System

Charlesl'll'

ActinB

Submitted bç

0. Melius
l1:i,$
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

i

Kirtland’s Warbler

National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Table of Contents

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

1.1 Introduction .. ........................................................................................................................................................1

1.2 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ......................................................................................................................2

1.3 The National Wildlife Refuge System . ................................................................................................................2

1.4 Michigan’s Northern Lower Peninsula Ecoregion ...............................................................................................4

1.5 Refuge Purpose ....................................................................................................................................................5

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

1.7 Purpose and Need for Plan ..................................................................................................................................5

1.8 Scope of the Plan .................................................................................................................................................6

1.9 History of Kirtland’s Warbler WMA Establishment and Management ...............................................................6

1.10 Legal Context .....................................................................................................................................................6

Chapter 2: The Planning Process ................................................................................................................................7

2.1 Internal Agency Scoping ......................................................................................................................................7

2.2 Open House Event ................................................................................................................................................7

2.3 Workshops ............... ............................................................................................................................................7

2.4 Summary of Issues, Concerns and Opportunities ................................................................................................8

2.4.1 Habitat Management ............................................................................................................................8

2.4.2 Wildlife Management ...........................................................................................................................8

2.4.3 Public Use ..............................................................................................................................................8

2.5 Preparation, Publishing, Finalization and Implementation of the CCP ................................................................8

2.6 Public Comments on the Draft CCP ......................................................................................................................9

Chapter 3: The Environment .......................................................................................................................................10

3.1 Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area ................................................................................................10

3.1.1 Introduction . ........................................................................................................................................10

3.2 Climate . ..............................................................................................................................................................10

3.3 Climate Change Impacts ....................................................................................................................................10

3.4 Climate Change Impacts to Kirtland’s Warbler Habitat ....................................................................................15

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

3.6 Soils ....................................................................................................................................................................16

3.7 Surface Hydrology ..............................................................................................................................................16

3.8 Archeological and Cultural Values ....................................................................................................................17

3.9 Social and Economic Context .............................................................................................................................17

3.10 Environmental Contaminants ...........................................................................................................................17

3.11 Natural Resources ............................................................................................................................................18

3.11.1 Historic Habitat Conditions ...............................................................................................................18
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

ii

3.11.2 Wildfire History .................................................................................................................................18

3.11.3 Plant Communities and Habitat Types ..............................................................................................18

3.11.4 Wetlands . ..........................................................................................................................................18

3.11.5 Uplands ..............................................................................................................................................18

3.11.6 Wildlife ..............................................................................................................................................22

3.11.6.1 Birds .................................................................................................................................22

3.11.6.2 Mammals .........................................................................................................................22

3.11.6.3 Reptiles and Amphibians .................................................................................................22

3.12 Associated Plans and Initiatives ......................................................................................................................23

3.12.1 Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan .......................................................................................................23

3.12.2 Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ............................................................................................24

3.12.3 Conservation Organization Plans ......................................................................................................24

3.12.4 Nuisance Species Management .......................................................................................................24

3.12.5 Prescribed Fires .................................................................................................................................25

3.12.6 Surveys and Censuses .......................................................................................................................25

3.12.7 Studies and Investigations ................................................................................................................25

3.12.8 Coordination Activities ......................................................................................................................29

3.12.9 Visitor Services ..................................................................................................................................29

3.12.9.1 Hunting ... .........................................................................................................................29

3.12.9.2 Fishing ..............................................................................................................................29

3.12.9.3 Photography, Wildlife Observation, Environmental Education and Interpretation .........29

3.13 Archaeological and Cultural Resources Management ....................................................................................30

3.14 Law Enforcement .............................................................................................................................................30

Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision ...........................................................................31

4.1 Goals, Objectives and Strategies .......................................................................................................................31

Chapter 5: Plan Implementation ................................................................................................................................37

5.1 New and Existing Projects .................................................................................................................................37

5.1.1 Kirtland’s Warbler WMA Operating Needs Projects ..........................................................................37

5.1.1.1 Enhance Refuge Management and Administration ..........................................................37

5.2 Current and Future Staffing Requirements ........................................................................................................38

5.3 Step-down Management Plans .........................................................................................................................38

5.4 Partnership Opportunities ..................................................................................................................................38

5.5 Wilderness Review ............................................................................................................................................38

5.6 Monitoring and Evaluation .................................................................................................................................39

5.7 Climate Change Evaluation ................................................................................................................................39

5.8 Plan Review and Revision ..................................................................................................................................39
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

iii

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment ................................................................................................................41

Appendix B: Glossary ..................................................................................................................................................67

Appendix C: Species Lists ..........................................................................................................................................71

Appendix D: Compliance Requirements ..................................................................................................................85

Appendix E: Appropriate Use Determinations .......................................................................................................93

Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations .............................................................................................................99

Appendix G: Bibliography and References Cited ... .............................................................................................109

Appendix H: List of Preparers ..................................................................................................................................115

Appendix I: Mailing List ...........................................................................................................................................119

Figures

Figure 1: Location of Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area, Michigan ............................................................3

Figure 2: Conservation Ownership in the Northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan ........................................................11

Figure 3: Jack Pine Habitat Suitability Hot Spots of Current and Modeled Importance Values (A.D. 2100) .................15

Figure 4: Pre-European Settlement Cover Types of the Northern Lower Peninsula, Michigan .....................................19

Figure 5: Current Landcover of the Northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan .. ................................................................20

Figure 6: Number of Singing Kirtland’s Warbler Males Per Sample Point, Kirtland’s Warbler WMA ..........................27

Figure 7: Frequency of Bird Occurrence Within Sample Stands, Kirtland’s Warbler WMA ..........................................28

Tables

Table 1: Soils of the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA ...............................................................................................................16

Table 2: Bird Species Strongly Associated with Young, KW, and Old, Stands of the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA ..........23

Table 3: Number of Kirtland’s Warbler Singing Males by Year (2000-2005) at 

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area ...............................................................................................26

Table 4: Parcel-level Abundance Values for Kirtland’s Warbler Singing Males 

Recorded at Kirtland’s Warbler WMA .............................................................................................................26

Table 5: Sites Identified for Potential Exchange .............................................................................................................35

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Introduction

By the mid-twentieth centur y, the Kirtland’s 

Warbler was a bird in trouble. Wildfire, a natural 

ecological process vital to producing its habitat, had 

been reduced in frequency and extent, severely 

reducing the population.

A small, neotropical migrant bird that is a summer native of Michigan, the Kirtland’s Warbler 

relies on a very specific type of fire-dependent forest habitat to thrive. 

The situation isn’t unique for either bird or habitat. Many native ecosystems of North America have 

been altered during the last three centuries due to 

human changes in land use and other factors. In 

many cases, natural ecological processes such as 

flooding and wildfire have been controlled or eliminated in favor of human settlement. A survey of Kirtland’s Warbler in 1951 found 432 

singing male birds. By the 1970s, fewer than 200 

singing males were surveyed on an annual basis. In 

1967, the species was placed on 

the Federal Endangered Species 

list. 

Kirtland’s Warbler female and nest. 

Photo credit: Ron Austing

Due to concerted management 

efforts by federal and state agencies, however, beginning in the 

1990s the population began to 

increase. By 2001, the total estimated population of singing male 

Kirtland’s Warblers had reached 

the recovery objective of over 

1,000 singing males and has 

stayed above this value for seven 

consecutive years. In 2008, the 

total estimated population of singing male Kirtland's Warblers in 

Michigan was 1,791, the greatest 

number yet recorded. 

Kirtland’s Warbler Listing Status

The Kirtland’s Warbler population has surpassed numeric recovery goals 

and there has been discussion about removing it from the list of threatened 

and endangered species. However, prior to delisting, safeguards must be in 

place that will ensure continued active management for this species. The 

persistence of the Kirtland's Warbler depends on the dynamic management 

of jack pine stands, Brown-headed Cowbird control, and monitoring of wintering habitat. The Kirtland's Warbler population would sharply decline 

without this critical management completed on an annual basis. 

Long-term conservation of this species will take the long-term commitment and funding of state and federal agencies that manage nesting habitat 

for the species. Jack pine management and cowbird control on the nesting 

grounds alone costs hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. To that end, 

the Kirtland's Warbler Recovery Team and other partners have proposed 

the creation of a private endowment fund to ensure management efforts are 

sustained. The endowment, along with a commitment from state and federal 

agencies for continued management, may make long-term conservation and 

delisting of Kirtland's Warbler a reality.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2

The Kirtland's Warbler nests in young jack pine 

forest growing on sandy glacial outwash soils. Warblers prefer to nest in jack pine forests that are 80 

acres or larger with numerous small (less than 1 

acre), grassy openings. This species tends to nest in 

groups; nests are placed on the ground among 

grasses or other plants and under limbs of 5-to-16-

foot tall jack pine. As jack pine trees mature, upper 

branches block the sun and the lower branches die; 

warblers cease to use the area.

The jack pine habitat used by Kirtland's Warbler 

is also used by a number of other bird species, 

including Spruce Grouse, Nashville Warbler, Yellowrumped Warbler, Eastern Towhee, Eastern Bluebird, Black-backed Woodpecker, and Brown 

Thrasher. Larger openings in jack pine-dominated 

ecosystems are inhabited by Upland Sandpiper, 

American Kestrel, and Sharp-tailed Grouse. 

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area 

was established in 1980 in response to the need for 

more land dedicated to the recovery of this species. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) established the wildlife management area, in part, due to 

the recommendations of the Kirtland's Warbler 

Recovery Team. The original goal was to acquire 

7,500 acres of land on which habitat would be managed for the benefit of Kirtland's Warbler. At present, the area contains 125 separate tracts totaling 

6,684 acres (Figure 1). While management for Kirtland’s Warbler is paramount, the WMA provides 

habitat for a diversity of wildlife species, both 

migratory and non-migratory. 

The Kirtland’s Warbler WMA does not have a 

permanent staff. The staff at Seney National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) oversees the WMA and provides 

limited services on an as-needed basis. These duties 

include, but are not limited to, administration of timber sales, coordinating with the state on harvestng 

and replanting efforts, participation in Kirtland’s 

Warber Recovery Team efforts, research, the Kirtland’s Warbler census, Brown-headed Cowbird 

trapping, public education, and on-site law enforcement.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service

Kirtland’s Warbler WMA is administered by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is the primary 

federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing the nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. It oversees the 

enforcement of federal wildlife laws, management 

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

restoration of wildlife habitat such as wetlands. The 

Service also manages the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, which includes the K irtland’s Warbler 

WMA.

The National Wildlife Refuge 

System

The Kirtland’s Warbler WMA is part of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, which was 

founded in 1903 when President Theodore 

Roosevelt designated Pelican Island in Florida as a 

sanctuary for Brown Pelicans. Today, the Refuge 

System is a network of 550 refuges and wetland 

management districts covering more than 96 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 

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 

Refuge 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, approximately 30 

million people visited national wildlife refuges in 

2004.
Figure 1: Location of Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area, Michigan

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

3
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

4

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 di versity of fi sh, wildli fe, 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 Northern Lower 

Peninsula Ecoregion

The Northern Lower Peninsula ecoregion encompasses 17,109 square miles and includes all or portions of 25 counties. Landcover in this ecoregion is 

primarily forest (67 percent) and wetlands (20 percent). Agricultural land use covers 4 percent and 

urbanization covers approximately 2 percent. The 

remainder of the landcover consists of open grasslands, sparsely vegetated areas, beaches and rock 

areas.

Retained forest structure in jack pine harvest for 

Kirtland’s Warbler habitat management. U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service photo.

This region is characterized by diverse topography with extensive outwash plains and large 

moraines. The ecoregion remains predominantly 

forested with northern hardwoods, early successional aspen forest, pine systems, and lowland conifer. Most air masses cross the Great Lakes before 

entering this ecoregion. As a result, the ecoregion 

experiences a climate that differs from that of the 

surrounding continent. Lake-effect snow is common 

throughout portions of the ecoregion within 20-30 

miles of the Great Lakes shoreline. The highest elevations in the Lower Peninsula occur in this ecoregion in the High Plains area. The High Plains, which 

is also the portion of the ecoregion most distant 

from the Great Lakes, experiences the most continental climatic conditions within the ecoregion: it 

has more summer precipitation, the greatest summer and winter temperature extremes, the shortest 

growing season, and the gr eatest risk of spring 

freeze (Denton 1985). The average length of the 

growing season for this ecoregion is 126 days 

(Albert 1995). 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

5

Extensive logging occurred in the latter half of 

the 19th century, causing major changes in forest 

composition. Early successional forest types (aspen/

birch forest) are more prevalent today because of 

past and current management. Fire suppression has 

resulted in the conversion of many of the barrens 

systems to closed-canopy forest. Following logging, 

farming was attempted on a broad range of soil 

types within the ecoregion. Farming was unsuccessful on most of the sandy so ils of the ecoregion, but 

row crops are grown locally on some of the loamy 

soils. Some pasturing is also done, especially on the 

loamy moraines. Orchards and vineyards are 

numerous along the Lake Michigan shoreline, 

where microclimatic conditions extend the growing 

season and reduce frost damage to fruit crops. 

Threats to biodiversity in this ecoregion are 

industrial, residential and recreational development 

and invasive species, including the spread of established species and the introduction of new species 

not yet found in the region. Fragmentation, an 

altered fire regime, non-consumptive recreation, 

disease, pathogens, parasites, social attitudes and 

lack of scientific knowledge are additional threats to 

this ecosystem.

Refuge Purpose

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area 

was established in 1980:

... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are 

listed as endangered species or threatened species .... or (B) plants ...16 U.S.C.1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973)

Refuge Vision

The planning team considered the past vision 

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

for the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA:

“The Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management 

Area will be managed to promote jack pine ecosystems that contribute to a sustainable population of Kirtland’s Warblers and associated 

wildlife species. Lands will be actively managed 

to mimic historic disturbance regimes and 

resulting structural and compositional attributes, such as dense stands of jack pine with 

barren-like openings, snags and coarse woody 

debris. Research will be encouraged and the 

public will be invited to learn about the jack 

pine ecosystem and the wildlife it supports.”

Purpose and Need for Plan

This CCP articulates the management direction 

for Kirtland’s Warbler WMA for the next 15 years. 

Through the development of goals, objectives, and 

strategies, this CCP describes how the WMA 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 the refuge will only be allowed 

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

Refuge System.

The plan will guide the management of Kirtland’s 

Warbler WMA by:

 Providing a clear statement of direction for 

the future management of the WMA.

 Making a strong conne ction between WMA 

activities and conservation activities that 

occur in the surrounding area.

 Providing WM A neighbors, users, and the 

general public with an understanding of the 

Service’s land acquisition and management 

actions on and around the WMA.

 Ensuring that WMA actions and programs 

are consistent with the mandates of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System.

 Ensuring that WMA management consi ders 

federal, state, and county plans.

 Establishing l ong-term conti nuity i n WMA 

management.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

6

 Providing a basis for the development of 

budget requests on the WMA’s operational, 

maintenance, and capital improvement 

needs.

Scope of the Plan

The goals, objectives and strategies presented in 

this CCP apply only to the scattered, generally 

small parcels managed by the Service as the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA. However, the Service works 

closely with the Michigan DNR, the U.S. Forest 

Service, and other neighboring landowners to 

ensure appropriate habitat management of larger 

habitat blocks.

The Kirtland’s Warbler WMA was established for 

the nesting habitat requirements of the endangered 

Kirtland’s Warbler. The habitat needs, protection, 

and monitoring of the Kirtland’s Warbler during 

wintering and migration are also vital to the survival 

of the species. Strategies for management of the 

species outside of the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA are 

beyond the scope of this plan. However, the Kirtland’s Warbler Recovery Plan (1985) addresses the 

needs of the warbler throughout its life cycle.

History of Kirtland’s Warbler 

WMA Establishment and 

Management

A survey of Kirtland's Warbler in Michigan in 

1951 found 432 singing male birds. By the 1970s, 

fewer than 200 singing males were being sur veyed 

on a yearly basis. Beginning in the 1990s, the population began to increase in response to management 

that occurred in the 1970s and 1980s through a 

multi-agency effort. By 2008, the total number of 

counted singing male Kirtland's Warblers in Michigan was 1,791. 

In response to the need for more land dedicated 

to the recovery of this species, the Service established the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA in 1980 due, in 

part, to the recommendations of the Kirtland's Warbler Recovery Team. The original go al was to 

acquire 7,500 acres of land on which habitat would 

be managed for the benefit of Kirtland's Warbler. At 

present, the area contains 125 separate tracts totaling 6,684 acres. 

Legal Context

In addition to the authorizing legislation for 

establishing the WMA, and the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, several 

federal laws, executive orders, and regulations govern administration of Kirtland’s Warbler WMA. 

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

those that pertain to WMA management.
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

7

Chapter 2: The Planning Process

The CCP for Kirtland’s Warbler WMA has been 

written with input and assistance from citizens, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and staff from 

state and local agencies. The participation of these 

stakeholders is vital and all of their ideas have been 

valuable in determining the future direction of the 

WMA.

Internal Agency Scoping

The CCP planning process began in March 2006 

with a kickoff meeting between Seney NWR staff 

and regional planners from the Service’s office in St. 

Paul. The participants in this “internal scoping” 

exercise reviewed the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA 

vision statements and goals, existing baseline 

resource data, planning documents and other information. In addition, the group identified a preliminary list of issues, concerns and opportunities facing 

the WMA that would need to be addressed in the 

CCP.

A list of required CCP elements such as maps, 

photos, and GIS data layers was also developed at 

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

studied federal and state mandates plus applicable 

local ordinances, regulations, and plans for their relevance to this planning effort. Finally, the group 

agreed to a process and sequence for obtaining public input and a tentative schedule for completion of 

the CCP. A Public Involvement Plan was drafted 

and distributed to participants immediately after 

the meeting.

Open House Event

Public input was encouraged and obtained using 

several methods, including hosting an open house, 

written comments during a public scopi ng period 

and personal contacts.

Initial public scoping for the Kirtland’s Warbler 

WMA began in August 2006 with an open house 

event held at Kirtland Community College in 

Roscommon, Michigan. Turn-out was light with four 

people attending despite widespread notification in 

area newspapers and in-person contacts. Comment 

forms were available at the event and made available at the Seney NWR head quarters 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 

planning website on the Internet. Six comment 

forms and other written comments were received 

during the scoping process.

Jack pine harvest. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service photo.

Workshops

On February 21, 2007, members of the Kirtland’s 

Warbler Recovery Team and others met at the 

Michigan DNR, Gaylord Operations Center, at the 

Service’s request to discuss the CCP and alternatives for future management of the Kirtland’s War-
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

8

bler WMA. Nearly all members of the team 

attended including additional staff from local DNR 

offices, several Service field stations, and representatives from the U.S. Forest Service and two universities. The group discussed current management of 

the widespread land holdings of the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA and ideas for more efficient management 

by all agencies that manage land as Kirtland’s Warbler habitat.

On April 10, 2008, a small group met to discuss 

the possibility of consolidating Kirtland’s Warbler 

WMA lands by exchanging lands with the Michigan 

DNR and/or the U.S. Forest Service. The group 

consisted of two to three representatives from each 

agency. It was agreed that consolidation could 

increase management efficiency for each agency 

involved. Criteria for land consolidation were 

agreed upon and will be discussed in the management section of this document.

Summary of Issues, Concerns 

and Opportunities

The following list of issues was generated by 

internal scoping, the public open house event and 

the workshop. Each issue will be described in more 

detail in the following chapters of this plan.

Habitat Management

 Forest M anagement: How can we change 

current silvicultural practices to better emulate historic conditions?

 Fire Management: How can we restore prescribed fire to Kirtland's Warbler WMA 

lands?

 Land Consolidatio n: Kirtland’s W arbler 

WMA parcels are inholdings within larger 

Michigan DNR parcels. Administration and 

habitat management would be more efficient 

if WMA parcels were consolidated into 

larger blocks by exchanging for other DNR 

or U.S. Forest Service lands.

Wildlife Management

 Brown-headed C owbird M anagement: Are 

there ways other than trapping to deal with 

Brown-headed Cowbirds?

 Kirtland’s Warbler Census: Will we be able 

to census birds each year?

 Delisting: What can we do from a land man -

agement standpoint to facilitate delisting of 

the species?

 Biodiversity: What can be done to improve 

habitat for native species other than the 

Kirtland’s Warbler? 

Public Use

 Hunting: Kirtland’s Warbler WMA units are 

open to hunting per state regulations. Some 

hunting practices are generally not allowed 

on Refuge System lands such as baiting, construction of blinds, all-terrain vehicle (ATV) 

use, and using dogs to hunt bears.

 Environmental Education: If land 

exchange/consolidation occurs it would 

change outreach, interpretation, environmental education, staffing needs and opportunities.

 Residential De velopment: R ural housing 

construction causes direct habitat loss and 

complicates prescribed burning. 

Northern Flicker. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service photo.

Preparation, Publishing, 

Finalization and 

Implementation of the CCP

The Kirtland’s Warbler Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment was 

prepared by a team from Seney NWR, the Service’s 

Regional Office in Minneapolis and a representative 

of the Michigan DNR. The CCP/EA was published 
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

9

in two phases (draft and final) and in accordance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). The EA (Appendix A) presents a range of 

alternatives for future management and identifies 

the preferred alternative, which is also the CCP. 

Verbal and written comments received by the 

Service were incorporated where appropriate. The 

alternative that was ultimately selected, Alternative 

3, became the basis of the ensuing Final CCP. This 

document then becomes the basis for guiding management on the WMA 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 Service-wide allocation 

databases. Most importantly, it lays out the general 

approach to managing habitat, wildlife, and people 

at the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA that will direct dayto-day decision-making and actions.

Public Comments on the Draft 

CCP

The Draft CCP/EA was released for public 

review on April 3, 2009; the comment period lasted 

42 days and ended May 15, 2009. By the conclusion 

of the comment period we received five 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 3 and the general approach of the proposed future management of the Kirtland’s Warbler 

WMA. 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: The Environment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

10

Chapter 3: The Environment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife 

Management Area

Introduction

Kirtland’s Warbler WMA was established in 1980 

in response to the need for more land dedicated to 

the recovery of this species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service established the WMA, in part, due to 

recommendations of the Kirtland’s Warbler Recovery Team. The original goal was to acquire 7,500 

acres of land on which habitat would be managed for 

the benefit of Kirtland's Warbler. At present, the 

area contains 125 separate tracts totaling 6,684 

acres. Most of these tracts are located within or 

adjacent to state forest lands also managed for the 

Kirtland’s Warbler (Figure 2). While management 

for Kirtland’s Warbler is paramount, the WMA provides habitat for a diversity of wildlife species, both 

migratory and non-migratory.

Climate

Due to its inland location, northern latitude and 

relatively high elevation, the Kirtland’s Warbler 

WMA is characterized by a relative severe climate. 

The growing season ranges from 70 to 130 days, 

with spring freezes common. Extreme temperatures recorded range from minus 50 degrees Fahrenheit to over 105 degrees Fahrenheit. Snowfall is 

heavy, with up to 140 inches recorded annually in 

some localities. Average annual precipitation is relatively uniform across the area, between 28 inches 

and 32 inches (Albert 1995).

Climate Change Impacts

The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an 

order in January 2001 requiring federal agencies 

under its direction that have land management 

responsibilities to consider potential climate change 

impacts as part of long range planning endeavors.

The increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) within the 

earth’s atmosphere has been linked to the gradual 

rise in surface temperature commonly referred to 

as global warming. In relation to comprehensive 

conservation planning for national wildlife refuges, 

carbon sequestration constitutes the primary climate-related impact that refuges can affect in a 

small way. The U.S. Department of Energy’s “Carbon Sequestration 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.”

Patch-cutting of jack pine to diversify age structure. U.S. 

Fish & Wildlife Service photo.

 
Figure 2: Conservation Ownership in the Northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan

Chapter 3: The Environment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

11
Chapter 3: The Environment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

12

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 

CO2. The Department of Energy report’s conclusions noted that ecosystem protection is important 

to carbon sequestration and may reduce or prevent 

loss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial biosphere. 

Conserving natural habitat for wildlife is the 

heart of any long-range plan for nati onal wildlife 

refuges and management areas. The actions proposed in this CCP would conserve or restore land 

and habitat, and would thus retain existing carbon 

sequestration on the WMA. This in turn contributes 

positively to efforts to mitigate human-induced 

global climate change.

One Service activity in particular – prescribed 

burning – releases CO2 directly to the atmosphere 

from the biomass consumed during combustion. 

However, there is actually no net loss of carbon, 

since new vegetation quickly germinates and 

sprouts to replace the burned-up biomass and 

sequesters or assimilates an approximately equal 

amount of carbon as was lost to the air (Boutton et 

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

change in the amount of carbon sequestered at Kirtland’s Warbler WMA from any of the proposed management alternatives.

Several impacts of climate change ha ve been 

identified that may need to be considered and 

addressed in the future:

 Habitat available for cold water f ish 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 responsible for the WMA 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 WMA. 

Adjustments in land management direction may be 

necessary over the course of time to adapt to a 

changing climate.

Elk were reintroduced to the northern Lower Peninsula 

Michigan in 1918. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

The following paragraphs are excerpts from the 

2000 report: Climate Change Impacts on the United 

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

Assessment Synthesis Team, an advisory committee 

chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act to help the US 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 
Chapter 3: The Environment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

13

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 Great 

Lakes 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 war ming 

has been the largest, an accelerated warming 

trend is projected for the 21st centu ry, 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 

degree 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. De spite the increases in 

precipitation, increases in temperature and 

other meteorological factors are likely to lead to 

a substantial increase in evaporation, causing a 

soil moisture deficit, reduction in lake and river 

levels, and more drought-like conditions in 

much of the region. In addition, increases in the 

proportion of precipitation coming from heavy 

and extreme precipitation are very likely. 

Midwest Key Issues:

1. Reduction in Lake and River Levels

Water levels, supply, quality, and water-based 

transportation and recreation are all climatesensitive issues affecting the region. Despite the 

projected increase in precipitation, increased 

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

Great Lakes. Of 12 models used to assess this 

question, 11 suggest significant decreases in 

lake levels while one suggests a small increase. 

The total range of the 11 models' projections is 

less than a one-foot increase to more than a fivefoot decrease. A five-foot (1.5- meter) reduction 

would lead to a 20 to 40 percent reduction in 

outflow to the St. Lawrence Seaway. Lower lake 

levels cause reduced hydropower generation 

downstream, with reductions of up to 15 percent 

by 2050. An increase in demand for water across 

the region at the same time as net flows 

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

tension related to increased pressure for water 

diversions from the Lakes as demands for water 

increase. For smaller lakes and rivers, reduced 

flows are likely to cause water quality issues to 

become more acute. In addition, the projected 

increase in very heavy precipitation events will 

likely lead to increased flash flooding and 

worsen agricultural and other non-point source 

pollution as more frequent heavy rains wash 

pollutants into rivers and lakes. Lower water 

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

of navigation of 5 to 40 percent. Some of this 

increase will likely be offset as reduced ice cover 

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

40 to 80 percent due to reduced water levels. 

Adaptations: A reduction in lake and river levels would require adaptations such as re- engineering of ship docks an d locks for 

transportation and recreation. If flows decrease 

while demand increases, international commissions focusing on Great Lakes water issues are 

likely to become even more important in the 

future. Improved forecasts and warnings of 

extreme precipitation events could help reduce 

some related impacts. 

2. Agricultural Shifts

Agriculture is of vital importance to this region, 

the nation, and the world. It has exhibited a 

capacity to adapt to moderate differences in 

growing season climate, and it is likely that 

agriculture would be able to continue to adapt. 

With an increase in the length of the growing 

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

likely to become more prevalent. The CO2 fer -

tilization effect is likely to enhance plant growth 

and contribute to generally higher yields. The 

largest increases are projected to occur in the 

northern areas of the region, where crop yields 

are currently temperature limited. However, 

yields are not likely to increase in all parts of 

the region. For example, in the southern portions of Indiana and Illinois, cor n yields are 

likely to decline, with 10 -20% decreases projected in some locations. Consumers are likely 

to pay lower prices due to generally increased 
Chapter 3: The Environment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

14

yields, while most producers are likely to suffer 

reduced profits due to declining prices. 

Increased use of pesticides and herbicides are 

very likely to be required and to present new 

challenges. 

Adaptations: Plant breeding programs can use 

skilled climate predictions to aid in breeding 

new varieties for the new growing conditions. 

Farmers can then choose varieties that are better attuned to the expected climate. It is likely 

that plant breeders will need to use all the tools 

of plant breeding, including genetic engineering, in adapting to climate change. Changing 

planting and harvest dates and planting densities, and using integrated pest management, 

conservation tillage, and new farm technologies 

are additional options. There is also the potential for shifting or expanding the area where 

certain crops are grown if climate conditions 

become more favorable. Weather conditions 

during the growing season are the primary factor in year-to-year differences in corn and soybean yields. Droughts and floods result in large 

yield reductions; severe droughts, like the 

drought of 1988, cause yield reductions of over 

30 percent. Reliable seasonal forecasts are 

likely to help farmers adjust their practices 

from year to year to respond to such events. 

3. Changes in Semi-natural and Natural 

Ecosystems

The Upper Midwest has a unique combination 

of soil and climate that allows for abundant 

coniferous tree growth. Higher temperatures 

and increased evaporation will likely reduce 

boreal forest acreage, and make current forestlands more susceptible to pests and diseases. It 

is likely that the southern transition zone of the 

boreal forest will be susceptible to expansion of 

temperate forests, which in turn will have to 

compete with other land use pressures. However, warmer weather (coupled with beneficial 

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

increase in tree growth rates on marginal forestlands that are currently temperature-limited. Most climate models indicate that h igher 

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 w ater i s a lso 

likely to create an environment more susceptible to invasions by non-native species. Runoff of 

excess nutrients (such as nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizer) into lakes and rivers is likely 

to increase due to the increase in heavy precipitation events. This, coupled with warmer lake 

temperatures, is likely to stimulate the growth 

of algae, depleting the water of oxygen to the 

detriment of other living things. Declining lake 

levels are likely to cause l arge impacts to the 

current distribution of wetlands. There is some 

chance that some wetlands could gradually 

migrate, but in areas where their migration is 

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

native wildlife have al ready 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. 

Bird trap sign at Kirtland’s Warbler WMA. U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service photo.
Figure 3: Jack Pine Habitat Suitability Hot Spots of Current and Modeled Importance 

Values (A.D. 2100)

The figure shows hot spot patches of the current and modeled distribution and the average of three. Hot spots are defined as the 

top 10 percent of importance values (Matthews et al. 2004)

Chapter 3: The Environment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

15

Climate Change Impacts to 

Kirtland’s Warbler Habitat

The predicted climate change scenarios for the 

Midwest Region include a shift in forested ecosystems as well as hydrologic factors. The future of the 

Kirtland’s Warbler is in a large part tied to the 

extent and availability of suitable jack pine forests. 

These forests will likely change in extent over time 

due to global climate change. 

The U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research 

Center, modeled and mapped 134 tree species from 

the eastern United States for potential response to 

several scenarios of climate change (Prasad et al. 

2007). The scenarios, built upon three independent 

climate models, predicted for both low and high 

intensity CO2 emissions through the year 2100. The 

model only depicted potential suitable habitats of 

species and not actual changes in ranges of the species. Factors that influence actual migration of a 

tree species include fragmentation of landscapes, 

competition with other species, and other possible 

inhibiting and accelerating factors. These factors 

are beyond the scope of the model. 

Of the 134 species, approximately 66 species 

would gain and 54 species would lose at least 10 percent of their suitable habitat under climate change. 

In general, the results show that species will have a 

lot less pressure to move to more suitable habitats if 

lower emission of greenhouse gases occurs. Under 

the lower emission scenario, jack pine might well 

persist within its current range although the extent 

and quality may be reduced by an unknown amount. 

Under the highest emissions scenario, we may see a 

greater reduction in the current extent of jack pine 

in Michigan and a shift in environmental conditions 

suitable for jack pine growth and development to 

the west in Wisconsin and Minnesota. 
Table 1: Soils of the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA

Soil Mapping Units/ Associations Acres % of WMA 

Grayling- Graycalm- Au Gres 2,286.00 34.7

Rubicon- Grayling- Croswell 2,217 33.7

Grayling- Rubicon- Au Gres 1,340 20.4

Graycalm- Kalkaska- Montcalm 307 4.7

Rubicon- Graycalm- Montcalm 226 3.4

Rubicon- Croswell- Au Gres 202 3.1

Menominee- Markey- Montcalm 4 0.1

Chapter 3: The Environment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

16

The two scenarios, when averaged, show that 

jack pine will have approximately the same potential 

habitat value, with some changes in distribution, 

within the eight-state Midwest Region. Current 

jack pine forests of the Lower and Upper Peninsula 

of Michigan, including the Kirtl and’s Warbler 

WMA, could decrease in extent and/or quality. However, new areas of potential habitat for jack pine will 

be found to the west of Michigan in western and 

north-western Wisconsin and at the prairie-boreal 

forest transition area in northwest Minnesota 

(Figure 3). 

Several national wildlife refuges and wetland 

management districts are located in or near these 

new potential “hotspots.” Thus, if climate scenarios 

play out as predicted, there may be reduction in the 

current distribution and quality of jack pine forests 

in Michigan and an expansion in the distribution of 

suitable environmental conditions for jack pine forests in west Wisconsin and west-central Minnesota. 

Service lands in these regions that host remnant 

jack pine stands might allocate some management 

effort into preserving these trees and hence seed 

sources. Should conditions for jack pine improve 

this will provide a basis for future stand development. If the population of Kirtland’s Warbler continues to rise, there is greater potential for individuals 

to disburse into new areas of suitable habitat or 

serve as source populations for transplants to new 

habitats. 

Geology and Glaciation

Michigan’s northern Lower Peninsula is underlain by Paleozoic bedrock and was completely glaciated during the Late Wisconsinan period. The 

underlying bedrock, which was deposited in marine 

and near-shore environments, includes sandstone, 

shale, limestone and dolomite (Dorr and Eschman 

1984). Limestone bedrock is locally exposed along 

the Lake Huron and Lake Michigan shorelines, but 

the sandy glacial deposits over most of the ecoregion are generally thick; the thickest deposits are 

600-1,100 feet near Cadillac and Grayling. Common 

glacial landforms include lake plain, outwash plain, 

end moraine and ground moraine. 

Soils

The physical characteristics of the Kirtland’s 

Warbler WMA are consistent with most of the 

northern half of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. 

Topographically, the land is flat to gently rolling and 

landforms are glacially derived. In terms of physiography and land classification, the majority of the 

stands (94 percent) are in the Highplains Landtype 

Association with 6 percent in the Presque Isle Landtype Association. Three soil associations dominate 

the tracts namely Grayling – Graycalm - Au Gres 

(35 percent), Rubicon – Grayling - Croswell (34 percent), and Grayling – Rubicon - Au Gres (21 percent). All of the soil series in the three soil 

associations are sands (Goebel et al. 2007). See 

Table 1. 

Surface Hydrology

All of the parcels within the Kirtland’s Warbler 

WMA are located on well-drained upland soils 

(Table 1). However, the northern Lower Peninsula 

has a variety of surface waters. Interior open wet-
Chapter 3: The Environment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

17

lands found within this ecoregion include intermittent wetlands, bogs, northern wet meadows, 

northern fens, and poor fens. Coastal wetlands 

include interdunal wetlands, wooded dune and swale 

complexes, and Great Lakes marshes.

Archeological and Cultural 

Values 

The Service has almost no information about cultural resources (in this case historic and prehistoric 

archeological sites, buildings and structures, places 

of historic events or persons, traditional cultural 

properties including sacred sites, and properties on 

or eligible for the National Register of Historic 

Places) within these eight counties of Michigan. For 

example, some counties have no historic properties 

on the National Register of Historic Places listed 

and the total of historic properties in the eight counties is 15. Furthermore, none of the historic properties are archeological sites and none are on or in the 

vicinity of current Kirtland’s Warbler WMA tracts. 

Even the chronology of prehistoric cultures and historic settlements is absent.

The Service has records of 37 historic period 

sites, mostly cabin sites, on Ser vice land and no 

recorded prehistoric sites. A number of 19th and 

early 20th century logging camps and related logging facilities are expected to be located in the area 

and if any are on Ser vice land they likely would be 

considered eligible for the National Register. The 

Service has no archeological collections from the 

Kirtland’s Warbler WMA.

Social and Economic Context

The eight counties in the Michigan’s northern 

Lower Peninsula that encompass the Kirtland’s 

Warbler WMA are primarily rural in nature. The 

economy is limited by a lower population, few industries and reduced agriculture compared to southern 

Michigan. Seasonal and tourism related employment is significant. For example, Ogemaw County is 

typical of the region and has the most Kirtland’s 

Warbler WMA parcels and acreage. As of the census 

of 2000, there were 21,645 people, 8,842 households, 

and 6,189 families residing in the county. The population density was 38 people per square mi le (15/

km2).

The racial makeup of the county was 97.48 percent White, 0.13 percent Black or African American, 

0.60 percent Native American, 0.38 percent Asian, 

0.03 percent Pacific Islander, 0.13 percent from 

other races, and 1.25 percent from two or more 

races. Just 1.16 percent of the population was Hispanic or Latino of any race and 97.9 percent spoke 

only English at home.

In the county, the age of the population was 

spread out with 23.50 percent under 18, 6.40 percent 

from 18 to 24, 24.40 percent from 25 to 44, 27 percent from 45 to 64, and 18.80 per cent who were 65 

years of age or older. The median age was 42 years. 

For every 100 females there were 98.40 males. 

The median income for a household in the county 

was $30,474, and the median income for a family was 

$34,988. Males had a median income of $ 31,003 versus $20,544 for females. The per capita income for 

the county was $15,768. About 11 percent of families 

and 14 percent of the population were below the 

poverty line, including 18.50 percent of those under 

age 18 and 9.90 percent of those age 65 or over (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2005).

Environmental Contaminants

In national maps, the northern Lower Peninsula 

of Michigan is not located in an area of high deposition of many substances (pH, Hg, NOx) that are elevated further south and east in the Great Lakes 

Basin.

Due to remote locations, most Kirtland’s Warbler 

WMA parcels are not near any point-sources of pollution. Therefore, most parcels are not at risk from 

spills or other releases from facilities. However, at 

least seven of the parcels are encumbered with oil 

and gas leases and some may have active wells. The 

level of oil and gas production is relatively low on 

these isolated sites. However, petroleum spills are a 

possibility on any active site. 

The landscape is likely to be impacted from air 

pollution that may originate from other, ore industrialized, areas of the Great Lakes basin and 

beyond.
Chapter 3: The Environment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

18

Natural Resources

Historic Habitat Conditions

Historical evidence indicates that prior to European settlement pine barrens of the northern Lower 

Peninsula of Michigan were large, relatively open, 

xeric tracts with clusters of jack pine and red pine of 

varying density scattered throughout. Common 

shrubs and herbaceous plants included cherry, 

Amelanchier spp., sweet fern, and bluestem. Fire, 

both anthropogenic and other, and biotic factors like 

jack pine budworm (Choristoneura pinus) acted as 

the primary disturbance mechanisms that maintained these ecosystems and created the diverse 

pattern of thickly forested conifer stands scattered 

among openings (Figure 4). 

Wildfire History

Fire always has been an important disturbance 

factor in the jack pine barrens. The young jack 

pines upon which the Kirtland's Warbler depends 

for nesting habitat grow after fire removes older 

trees and rejuvenates the forest. Heat from fire 

opens jack pine cones to release seeds. Fire also 

prepares the ground for the germination of the 

seeds.

Historically, the jack pine barrens were maintained by naturally occurring wildfires that swept 

through the region. The jack pine held little value 

for the lumbermen who came in search of white 

pine. Once logging activity ended in the 1880s, the 

continuing forest fires helped increase the area of 

jack pine in the northern Lower Peninsula, creating 

more potential nesting habitat. 

Plant Communities and Habitat Types

Landcover in the northern Lower Peninsula of 

Michigan is primarily forest (67 percent) and wetlands (20 percent). Agricultural land use covers 4 

percent and urbanization covers approximately 2 

percent (Figure 5 on page 20). The remainder of the 

landcover consists of open grasslands, sparsely vegetated areas, beaches and rock areas. This region is 

characterized by diverse topography with extensive 

outwash plains and large moraines. The ecoregion 

remains predominantly forested with northern 

hardwoods, early successional aspen forest, pine 

systems, and lowland conifer (Michigan DNR 2005). 

Wetlands

Approximately 2 percent of the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA, or 137 acres, is characterized by wetland 

ecosystems and 0.6 percent is classified as lakes. No 

detailed inventories or research have been conducted within these habitat types, however.

Uplands

According to the assessment of Goebel et al. 

(2007), 41 percent of the stands (2,695 acres) are 

between 5-23 years old, while 14 percent (959 acres) 

are less than 5 years old and 45 percent (2,298 acres) 

are greater than 23 years old. It is important to note 

that many of the stands have multiple cohorts; to 

determine the age of each stand the most extensive 

cohort was considered indicative of the overall stand 

age.

Seventeen overstory (stems greater than 4 inches 

dbh) tree species have been found at Kirtland’s Warbler WMA, with jack pine, red pine, scarlet oak, 

trembling aspen, black cherry, black oak, northern 

red oak, and bigtooth aspen as common overstory 

species. Other less common species include eastern 

white pine, red maple, balsam fir, green ash, black 

ash, white spruce, northern pin oak and fire cherry 

The younger stands are dominated by several 

species including jack pine, trembling aspen, and 

black cherry, while the 5-23 year old stands are 

dominated by jack pine. In some instances, the 5-23 

year old stands occur under sparsely distributed 

canopy of older red pine. The older stands (greater 

than 23 years old) have variable composition, but for 

the most part are dominated by mature jack pine.

The understory (stems less than 4 inches dbh and 

greater than 1 inch dbh) included 23 species, the 

most frequent being:

 jack pine

 red pine

 white pine

 black cherry

 fire cherry

 white oak

 scarlet oak

 northern pin oak

 northern red oak

 black oak
Figure 4: Pre-European Settlement Cover Types of the Northern Lower Peninsula, Michigan

Chapter 3: The Environment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

19
Figure 5: Current Landcover of the Northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan

Chapter 3: The Environment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

20
Chapter 3: The Environment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

21

 trembling aspen

 bigtooth aspen

Although present, red maple, green ash, black 

ash, white ash, balsam fir, white spruce, tag alder, 

witch-hazel, serviceberry, hawthorn and birch were 

less common. Jack pine was the most common 

understory tree sampled and is characteristic of the 

understory in all three age classes. Black cherry, 

trembling aspen, and northern red oak are also common but are generally associated with those stands 

less than 5 years old and 5-23 years old.

The seedling layer (stems less than 1 inch dbh) is 

characterized by 29 woody plants including:

 jack pine

 red pine

 eastern white pine

 bigtooth aspen

 trembling aspen

 white oak

 scarlet oak

 northern pin oak

 northern red oak

 black oak

 black cherry

 fire cherry

 choke cherry

 red maple

 green ash

 black ash

 American basswood

 balsam fir

 witch-hazel

 serviceberry

 alternate-leaf dogwood

 dogwood

 hawthorne

 eastern hophornbeam

 willow

 honeysuckle

 currant

 gooseberry 

In terms of stand structure, the primary interest 

for Kirtland’s Warbler management is jack pine 

stem density. On the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA, 

overstory stem density is highest in the older age 

class (greater than 23 years old) than the other two 

younger age classes, while understory stem density 

tends to be highest on average in the youngest age 

class (less than 5 years old). There is also considerable variability in overstory and understory stem 

density within each age group, especially the youngest age class. This trend is largely due to the range 

of conditions associated with recent harvest activities where portions of the stands may not have been 

harvested.

Clear cuts with reserves at Kirtland’s Warbler WMA. U.S. 

Fish & Wildlife Service photo.

Most importantly to Kir tland’s Warbler, mean 

total stem density in the 5 to 23-year-old stands is 

lower than is optimal. For instance, average total 

stem density is 73.1 (10.8) stems per acre in the 5 to 

23-year-old stands and 333.0 (14.5) stems per acre in 

the older stands. Similarly, jack pine densities in the 

5 to 23-years-old stands have on average 12.5 (5.2) 

overstory stems per acre and 24.7 (2.5) understory 

stems per acre for a total average of 37.2 (6.1) jack 

pine stems per acre (91.8 (15.0) stems ha-1). While 

these estimates are indicative of under-stocking in 

these Kirtland’s Warbler WMA stands, it is important to point out that the variability within a tract 

may “depress” these estimates when mean values 

are calculated. It is also important to realize that 

overstory and understory density tended to be quite 

“patchy” in many of the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA 

stands. 
Chapter 3: The Environment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

22

As observed in the overstory and understory 

stem density values, seedling densities are also 

quite variable within age groups, with an average of 

1,779 (n=302) total seedlings ac-1 in the young age 

class (less than 5 years old), 2,514 (155) seedlings ac1 in the 5-23 year old class, and 2,804 (209) seedlings 

ac-1 in the oldest age class (greater than 23 years 

old). Jack pine seedling densities are considerably 

lower, comprising less than 25 percent of the total 

seedling community in all three age classes. 

The inventory of Geobel et al. (2007) suggests 

that none of the stands between 5-23 years old in the 

Kirtland’s Warbler WMA appear to have optimal 

stocking for breeding Kirtland’s Warbler (greater 

than 1,012 stems ac-1). However, as mentioned previously, it is important to keep in mind that there is 

considerable variation between stands in terms of 

seedling density. These results suggest that past 

regeneration efforts, which appear to vary considerably in terms of the methods used, did not always 

provide the preferred stocking levels of jack pine for 

Kirtland’s Warbler. In the future, other regeneration methods may be advisable, including direct 

seeding and the use of prescribed fire. 

It is also important to point out that the species 

composition and structure (including age structure) 

is not only variable among Kirtland’s Warbler WMA 

stands, but also within individual stands. In some 

areas regeneration methods have left a “patchwork” 

pattern where small gaps have purposely been left 

unplanted in an effort to provide foraging habitat 

for nesting birds or have resulted from failed regeneration efforts. In other stands, natural disturbances (such as wildfire) have left a patchy 

distribution of overstory and understory stems. 

Finally, other stands may have wetla nd areas or 

different soil types that do not lend themselves to 

jack pine forest ecosystems. A good example of this 

pattern can be found in a stand located in Oscoda 

County. Using the on-screen digitizing tool in ArcGIS® and 2005 1-m resolution NAIP orthophotography, we estimate that only 116 acres or 15 percent 

of the 780 acres total is considered Kirtland’s Warbler habitat (between 5-23 years old). The remainder of the tract is domina ted by wetlands in the 

interior (200 acres or 26 percent), older jack pine in 

the northwestern portion of the tract (200 acr es or 

26 percent), and mixed jack pine and hardwood in 

the eastern portion of the tract (265 acres or 33 percent). However, due to the heterogeneous nature of 

some stands, digital imagery should be examined or 

a site visit be made before making conclusions 

regarding the composition and structural characteristics of each stand.

Wildlife

Birds

The first known non-Kirtland’s Warbler bird surveys conducted on the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA 

occurred as part of the assessment work contracted 

by the Service in 2006 (Goebel et al. 2007). Sixty 

bird species were documented during point counts 

conducted in jack pine-dominated tracts; 75 percent 

were breeding species recorded on the evidence of 

singing males. 

Whereas jack pine plantations provide food and 

shelter for a certain suite of species, other jack pine 

ecosystems offer habitat for a different suite of 

birds, many of which are either officially listed or of 

conservation priority (Table 2). Species that use 

mature jack stands include Black-ba cked Woodpecker, Spruce Grouse, and Olive-sided Flycatcher. 

In the younger jack pine stands and more open 

areas, many openland (grassland and shruland) 

birds of conservation concern breed. Species found 

in the early successional stages of jack pine ecosystems include (of course) Kirtland’s Warbler, Palm 

Warbler, Black-billed Cuckoo, B rown Thrasher, 

Eastern Towhee, Prairie Warbler, and Nashville 

Warbler. The American Kestrel, Northern Harrier, 

Upland Sandpiper, and Clay-colored Sparrow can be 

found in the larger, more open areas.

Mammals

Based on state-wide distribution patterns (Kurta 

2001), there are approximately 52 extant mammal 

species possible within the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA 

(Appendix C). However, range expansion of some 

species is likely to occur soo n. For instance, 

although not prevalent within the Lower Peninsula 

of Michigan now, gray wolf (a federally listed endangered species) is likely to become established in the 

future. Species of high public interest include river 

otter, beaver, snowshoe hare, and white-tailed deer. 

Reptiles and Amphibians

Based on state-wide distribution patterns (multiple authors), 36 species of herptofauna possibly 

exist within the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA and many 

of these species are of conservation priority (Appendix C). Much more inventory work is required at the 

Kirtland’s Warbler WMA. Future considerations 
Table 2: Bird Species Strongly Associated with Young, KW, and Old, 

Stands of the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA

Young

(Less than 5 years old)

KW

(5-23 years old)

Old

(More than 23 years old)

Indigo Bunting*** Kirtland’s Warbler*** Eastern Wood-Pewee***

Eastern Bluebird*** Nashville Warbler*** Hermit Thrush***

Field Sparrow*** Eastern Towhee*** Ovenbird***

Lincoln's Sparrow*** Brown Thrasher** Rose-breasted Grosbeak***

Black-billed Cuckoo* Alder Flycatcher** Red-breasted Nuthatch***

Red-eyed Vireo***

Black-capped Chickadee**

Chipping Sparrow**

Mourning Dove*

*P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001. 

Table 2 provides the results of a statistical procedure that assigns species to each of the three stand ages based 

on frequency of encounters. It also only shows species whose P-value is <0.05. Some species are also highly 

associated with these stands, but at greater P-values. See Figure 6 on page 27.

Chapter 3: The Environment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

23

should be made to include management appropriate 

for other species of concern and rare species such as 

the Massasauga rattlesnake and Blanding's turtle.

Associated Plans and 

Initiatives

Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan

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

was completed to better manage wildlife species and 

their habitats of “greatest conservation need” in 

Michigan. The plan was developed with the support 

of funding from the State Wildlife Grant Program 

created by Congress in 2001. The goal of the plan is 

to provide a common strategic framework that 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 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 conser vation 

actions, research and survey needs, and 

long-term monitoring needed to assess the 

success of conservation efforts;

 complements other cons ervation s trategies, 

funding sources, planning initiatives, and 

legally mandated activities;

 incorporates public participation to provide 

an opportunity for all conservation partners 

and Michigan residents to influence the 

future of resource management;

 provides guidance for use of State W ildlife 

Grant funds; and

 provides a clear process for review and revision as necessary to address changing conditions and to integrate new information as it 

becomes available. 
Chapter 3: The Environment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

24

Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives

Several migratory bird conservation plans have 

been published over the last decade that can be used 

to help guide management decisions for the refuges 

and WMAs. Bird conservation planning efforts have 

evolved from a largely local, site-based orientation 

to a more regional, even inter-continental, landscape-oriented perspective. Several trans-national 

migratory bird conser vation initiatives have 

emerged to help guide the planning and implementation process. The regional plans relevant to Kirtland’s Warbler WMA are: 

Aerial photo of intensely managed jack pine plantations 

(left) and prescribed fire jack pine habitat (right).

 The Upper M ississippi River/Gre at Lakes 

Joint Venture Implementation Plan of the 

North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan;

 The P artners in Flight Boreal Hardwood 

Transition [land] Bird Conservation Plan;

 The Upper Mississippi Valley/Great L akes 

Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan; and

 The Upper Mississippi Valley/Great L akes 

Regional Waterbird Conservation Plan.

All four conservation plans are 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.

Conservation Organization Plans

Several non-governmental organizations have 

implemented planning initiatives in the northern 

Lower Peninsula region. Plans and publications of 

note inclue Michigan Important Bird Areas

(National Audubon Society, 2009), Great Lakes 

Ecoregional Plan (The Nature Conservancy, 2000) 

and the publication Conservation Planning for the 

Grayling Subdistrict of Michigan (Mulladore et al., 

2006)

Nuisance Species Management

No inventories of invasive plants have been done 

at the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA. However, it is 

known that some of the wetland areas contain pur -

ple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) and that spotted 

knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) can be locally 

common in the openlands. Autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata) is not currently found in the jack 

pine systems, but does occur in richer soils nearby.

It is unknown what invasive species may come 

into jack pine ecosystem due to climate change. 

However, future planning will likely need to address 

such an issue and focus on early detection and rapid 

response efforts, and outreach to owners of nurseries or other potential vectors of invasive species and 

pathogens. 

Control of the Brown-headed Cowbird is a vital 

part of Kirtland’s Warbler management (Probst et 

al. 2003). Without Cowbird control, up to 70 percent 

of Kirtland’s Warbler nests may be parasitized 

(Walkinshaw 1972). According to Chris Mensing 

(U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, East Lasing Field 

Office), biologists from the East Lansing Field 

Office have trapped Brown-headed Cowbirds annually since 1972 in Kirtland’s Warbler nesting areas 

to reduce nest parasitism. Traps are operated each 

year from mid-April through June, with trapping 

beginning approximately one month before Kirtland’s Warblers arrive to take advantage of cowbird 

migration chronology and behavior. Cowbirds usually begin arriving in the northern Lower Peninsula 

of Michigan in April. At that time Cowbirds are in 

flocks and tend to exhibit a higher degree of social 

or gregarious behavior. This behavior seems to 

make them more susceptible to decoy trapping than 

later in the season when they disperse across the 
Chapter 3: The Environment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

25

landscape to breed. Consequently, it is important to 

initiate trapping at approximately the time cowbirds 

arrive in the area for optimal trap effectiveness. 

The decoy traps require live decoys for effective 

operation. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services (USDA-APHIS-WS), at Sandusky, 

Ohio, capture and temporarily house the necessary 

cowbirds which arrive in northern Ohio each spring 

weeks before they arrive in northern Michigan. 

Brown-headed Cowbirds are trapped to reduce Kirtland’s 

Warbler nest parasitism. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

photo.

In 2008, 3,135 Brown-headed Cowbirds were captured, 8.2 percent fewer birds than last year’s total 

of 3,415. Since 1972, 140,040 cowbirds have been 

removed from Kirtland’s Warbler nesting areas, 

averaging 3,893 per year. The 54 traps caught an 

average of 58 cowbirds per trap over 3,647 trap 

days. The number of cowbirds removed each year 

has increased 16 times and decreased 20 times during the 37 years of the program. This is likely due to 

normal fluctuations in the cowbird population, and 

may indicate that the trapping program has had no 

long-term effect on the area’s Brown-headed Cowbird population. 

Although a member of the native faunal community, the dramatic population increase noted in 

white-tailed deer numbers across much of the northern Lower Peninsula over the last century has 

resulted in numerous adverse effects to ecosystems, 

supporting the argument that the effects of over 

abundant deer may be as substantial as some exotic 

species. In some area of the Kirtland’s Warbler 

WMA, deer densities are higher than desired. The 

effects of browsing may be locally intense, especially 

in the few hardwood stands found at the Kirtland’s 

Warbler WMA. Consideration should be given to liberalizing the take of this game species at the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA. 

Prescribed Fires

Prescribed fire is an effective way to regenerate 

jack pine stands and maintain younger stands for 

breeding warblers. In the past, prescribed and natural fires were the primary method of habitat creation used in the area. The first management action 

at Kirtland’s Warbler WMA was a successful prescribed fire in 1992. However, the terrain and climate of the pine barrens, the history and threat of 

fire escape, and local residents’ aversion to burning 

severely limit the use of fire for jack pine management. 

Surveys and Censuses

Endangered and Threatened Species

Kirtland’s Warbler WMA tracts are included as 

part of the annual Kirtland’s Warbler census conducted by the Michigan Department of Natural 

Resources. It is estimated that, on average, 4 percent of the known world population of Kirtland’s 

Warbler have been found on the WMA since 2000 

(Table 3 on page 26). In occupied WMA stands, over 

three singing males have been recorded on average 

per sampling plot (Table 4 on page 26). 

 The first known non-Kirtland’s Warbler wildlife 

surveys conducted on the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA 

occurred as part of the assessment work contracted 

by the Service in 2006 (Goebel et al. 2007). Sixty 

bird species were documented during point counts 

conducted in jack pine-dominated tracts; 75 percent 

were breeding species recorded on the evidence of 

singing males. Bird communities and individual species abundance and frequency of encounter patterns 

generally differed among stand age classes (see 

Figure 6 on page 27 and Figure 7 on page 28). 

Studies and Investigations

Research is an integral component of land management for wildlife population preservation, conservation, and restoration and should be 

incorporated along with future inventory and monitoring. Historically, the majority of research on 

many refuges pertained to single species of wildlife 

and their habitats. However, as theories and concepts regarding wildlife and habitat management 

have changed, so too should the focus of research. 

For instance, in recent years, upland research in the 
Table 3: Number of Kirtland’s 

Warbler Singing Males by Year 

(2000-2005) at Kirtland’s Warbler 

Wildlife Management Area

Year Number of 

Singing 

Males

Percentage (%) of 

Total Michigan 

Singing Male 

Population

2000 5 0.6

2001 30 2.8

2002 27 2.6

2003 59 4.9

2004 72 5.3

2005 100 7.0

2006 124 8.4

2007 137 8.1

Average 

(±1SD)

48.8 (34.7) 3.9 (2.3)

Data provided by K. Kintigh (MDNR)

Table 4: Parcel-level Abundance Values for Kirtland’s Warbler 

Singing Males Recorded at Kirtland’s Warbler WMA 

Stand Age 

Class

County Tract-ID Sampling Points Singing KW per 

sampling point

KW Clare CL-08 2 3.00

KW Clare CL-11 1 3.00

KW Clare CL-18 3 4.33

KW Clare CL-21 2 5.00

KW Crawford CR-09 1 4.00

KW Crawford CR-10 1 3.00

KW Oscoda OS-02 6 2.50

KW Oscoda OS-03 2 3.50

KW Oscoda OS-14 1 2.00

KW Oscoda OS-18 1 1.00

KW Ogemaw OG-26 3 4.33

KW Ogemaw OG-28 4 1.75

YOUNG Ogemaw OG-01 1 1.00

YOUNG Ogemaw OG-25 1 4.00

TOTAL 29 3.07

Chapter 3: The Environment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

26
Figure 6: Number of Singing Kirtland’s Warbler Males Per Sample Point, Kirtland’s 

Warbler WMA

Chapter 3: The Environment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

27
Figure 7: Frequency of Bird Occurrence Within Sample Stands, Kirtland’s Warbler WMA

Chapter 3: The Environment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

28
Chapter 3: The Environment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

29

region has increasingly been focused on ecosystem 

patterns and processes, such as the ecological disturbance history of forest stands in the context of 

restoration of stand composition and structure in 

stands altered by past human activities. Future 

research should continue to pursue aspects of disturbance ecology, restoration ecology, landscape 

ecology, forest ecology, and conservation biology and 

related fields in the context of wildlife habitat conservation, preservation, and restoration at the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA. Other future research should 

examine the effects of invasive species and climate 

change on ecosystem patterns and processes.

Coordination Activities

The Seney NWR staff who manage Kirtland’s 

Warbler WMA invest a significant amount of energy 

and time representing the WMA in its role as a partner with other resource agencies and non-government organizations. The Refuge Manager serves as 

a member of the Kirtland’s Warber Recovery Team 

and the Refuge Forester participates as a team 

member on various committees and groups. 

Visitor Services

The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act emphasizes wildlife management 

and that all prospective public uses on any given 

unit of the Refuge System must be found to be compatible with the wildlife-related 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: 

 wildlife observation

 wildlife photography

 hunting

 fishing

 environmental education

 interpretation of nature

Opportunities to participate in all of these wildlife-dependent activities, with the exception of fishing, exist at Kirtland’s Warbler WMA.

Hunting

Kirtland’s Warbler WMA is open for h unting of 

all legal game species in Mich igan per state regulations. However, little is known regarding the statistics regarding hunting use. Due to the nature of the 

habitats at the Management Area, the species most 

likely hunted are white-tailed deer, Wild Turkey, 

Ruffed Grouse, snowshoe hare, American Woodcock, and black bear. In early successional stands 

(recent clear cuts waiting regeneration for Kirtland’s Warbler) hunting is probably limited to Wild 

Turkey and white-tailed deer. As stands mature and 

become close-canopy with more mature trees, more 

species are hunted and more hunting likely occurs. 

The use of bait, snowmobiles, or ATVs is prohibited.

Black bear. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service photo

Fishing

Although a few parcels of the Management Area 

are adjacent to streams, most parcels do not have 

fishable waters. Fishing is likely not a very common 

event at Kirtland’s Warbler WMA.

Photography, Wildlife Observation, Environmental 

Education and Interpretation

The majority of the Visitor Services that are provided by the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA are interwoven into the yearly Kirtland’ s Warbler tours 
Chapter 3: The Environment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

30

conducted by the Service’s East Lansing Field 

Office, Michigan Audubon Society and the U. S. Forest Service. According to Service records, during 

2008 a total of 775 people from 40 states and three 

foreign countries attended a tour to see Kirtland’s 

Warbler and hear about habitat management. These 

tours occur yearly from May 15 to July 4. 

Although parcels inhabited by Kirtland’s Warbler 

during the breeding season are closed to entry, uninhabitated areas and the network of two-track roads 

that connect them afford photographers of all skill 

levels opportunities to photograph wildlife and 

excellent hiking and biking opportunities. 

Archaeological and Cultural 

Resources Management

No active cultural resources management occurs 

on the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA. In general, cultural resources management in the Service is the 

responsibility of the Regional Director and is not 

delegated to field managers for the Section 106 process when historic properties could be affected by 

Service undertakings, for issuing archeological permits, and for Indian tribal involvement. The 

Regional Historic Preservation Officer advises the 

Regional Director about procedures, compliance, 

and implementation of cultural resources laws. The 

field manager assists by informing the Regional 

Historic Preservation Officer about Service undertakings, by protecting archeological sites and historic properties, by mo nitoring archeological 

investigations by contractors and permittees, and 

by reporting violations. 

Law Enforcement

Kirtland’s Warbler WMA is dedicated to safeguarding the resources under its jurisdiction, 

including natural resources, cultural resources, and 

facilities. Resource management on the WMA 

includes both protective and preventive functions. 

Protection is safeguarding the visiting public, staff, 

facilities and natural and cultural resources from 

criminal action, accidents, negligence and acts of 

nature such as wildfires. Preventing incidents from 

occurring is the best form of protection and requires 

a known and visible law enforcement presence as 

well as other proactive steps to address potential 

threats and natural hazards. 

Over the years, the most common violations on 

the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA have been vandalism 

and trespass. Vandalism incidents have included 

damage to signs and other structures and dumping 

on side roads.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

31

Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: 

Tomorrow’s Vision

Goals, Objectives and 

Strategies

The planning team developed goals and objectives for three management alternatives at Kirtland’s Warbler WMA. Cooperating agencies, 

conservation organizations and Seney NWR staff all 

participated in this endeavor. The three alternatives 

were: 

 Alternative 1: Cur rent Direction of Habitat 

Management (No Action) 

 Alternative 2: Management from an Ecological Perspective 

 Alternative 3: Ecological Managem ent and 

Land Ownership Consolidation (Preferred 

Alternative)

The preferred alternative, Ecological Management and Land Ownership Consolidation forms the 

basis for the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA CCP and the 

goals, objectives and strategies presented on the following pages. The planning team established goals 

for the WMA as a whole, 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.

Three goals were established for Kirtland’s Warbler WMA:

 Goal 1: Wildlife – Ma nagement will play an 

integral role in the recovery of the Kirtland’s 

Warbler. Kirtland’s Warbler WMA lands will 

support the broad array of wildlife species 

that are dependent on each seral stage of the 

jack pine ecosystems (from barrens to 

mature jack pine).

 Goal 2: Habitat – Manage habitat to support 

Kirtland’s Warblers and associated wildlife 

species by providing near benchmark conditions across all seral stages of the jack pine 

ecosystem. Employ sound management 

practices that emulate patterns of structure 

and composition resulting from wildfire and 

other natural disturbances.

 Goal 3: People – Encourage the public to 

explore jack pine ecosystems and learn about 

its associated wildlife. 

Goal 1: Wildlife

Management will play an integral role in the recovery of 

the Kirtland’s Warbler. Kirtland’s Warbler WMA lands will 

support the broad array of wildlife species that are dependent on each seral stage of the jack pine ecosystems (from 

barrens to mature jack pine). 

Objective 1.1

Continue to be an active partner in the Kirtland’s 

Warbler recovery effort.

Spruce Grouse. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service photo.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

32

Rationale: The Kirtland’s Warbler WMA was 

established in 1980, under authority of the Endangered Species Act, to aid in the recovery of the Kirtland’s Warbler. Since that time, the Service has been 

an active participant in a partnership that has 

brought the Kirtland’s Warbler population from the 

brink of extinction to numbers surpassing the recovery objective for the last 7 years. Guided by the 

Kirtland’s Warbler Recovery Team, this partnership 

has developed techniques to census the population, 

limit nest parasitism, and regenerate jack pine to 

create suitable nesting habitat.

American badger. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service photo

Examples of Service Resource Conservation Priority Species that will benefit under this management include: Black-billed Cuckoo, Field Sparrow, 

Northern Flicker, and Upland Sandpiper.

Strategies:

1. Participate in the annual Kirtland’s W arbler 

Census to aid in monitoring the population 

trends.

2. Work with Ecological Services to continue 

annual trapping efforts to remove Brownheaded Cowbirds from nesting ar eas and 

explore new ways to eliminate Cowbirds parasitism of Kirtland’s Warbler nests. 

3. Coordinate har vest and regeneration of jack 

pine on Kirtland’s Warbler WMA lands with 

the Michigan DNR to ensure that the Services lands are contributing to the Kirtland’s 

Warbler recovery effort.

4. Conduct and participate in research to better 

understand the ecology and management of 

Kirtland’s Warbler populations.

Objective 1.2

By 2016, implement a monitoring program to 

track the presence, abundance, population 

trends, and/or habitat associations of Trust 

Resources and determine ways to emulate natural species diversity.

Rationale: The jack pine ecosystem is known to 

support a vast array of wildlife, many of which are 

listed as Resource Conservation Priority Species in 

Region 3 of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Since 

the creation of the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA, recovery of Kirtland’s Warbler has been the only goal of 

its management. Now, with Kirtland’s Warbler populations exceeding recovery goals for 7 consecutive 

years, the Service has an opportunity to manage 

more from an ecological perspective and benefit 

species across the seral stages of the jack pine ecosystem. Research should be conducted to determine 

how to best manage the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA 

for all Trust Species, without diminishing its contribution to Kirtland’s Warbler recovery.

Strategies:

1. Determine the presence, abundance and habitat associations of Trust Resources currently 

using Kirtland’s Warbler WMA lands.

2. Develop and implement a monitoring pro -

gram to track population trends, and/or habitat associations of Trust Resources.

3. Conduct annual revi ews of tre nds t o d etermine if there are priorities for research or 

management.

4. If a Trust Resource research or management 

issue is identified, initiate action at the local 

level. If the issue goes beyond the boundary 

of the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA, take the lead 

role in coordinating with federal, state, and 

non-government organization partners to 

develop broader scale projects to resolve 

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

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

33

Goal 2: Habitat

Manage habitat to support Kirtland’s Warblers and associated wildlife species by providing near benchmark conditions across all seral stages of the jack pine ecosystem. 

Employ sound management practices that emulate patterns 

of structure and composition resulting from wildfire and 

other natural disturbances.

Objective 2.1

Continue to manage jack pine stands in conjunction with the Michigan DNR, but place greater 

emphasis on promoting ecological integrity 

within managed stands.

Rationale: Michigan DNR forest managers have 

devised a system of intensively managing jack pine 

that provide suitable nesting habitat for the Kirtland’s Warbler. However these plantations are ecologically simplified and lack the diversity of stands 

produced by the natural disturbance mechanism, 

wildfire. This loss of st ructural and compositional 

diversity has negatively impacted populations of 

many wildlife species in Michigan. 

Future management should consider all seral 

stages of jack pine ecosystem development, from 

barrens to mature forest, and strive to emulate natural conditions in each stage. This is important, 

because each stage offers habitat for a different 

suite of species, many of which are on the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service Conservation Priority list. 

Young stands (grassland and shrubland) can provide 

breeding habitat for openland birds, including 

Upland Sandpiper, Prairie Warbler, and Clay-colored Sparrow. Bird species that use later seral 

stages or the “biological legacies” of these stands 

include Red Crossbill, Black-backed Woodpecker 

and Olive-sided Flycatcher. 

Strategies:

1. Work with federal, state and local officials to 

garner support for the use of prescribed fire 

in the management of jack pine to create Kirtland’s Warbler nesting habitat.

2. Work with federal, state and local fire officials 

to employ prescribed fire as a management 

tool where it can be applied safely without 

risk to life and property.

3. Elsewhere, attempt to emulate the compositional and structural patterns of jack pine 

stands resulting from wildfire through 

mechanical treatments (i.e. timber sales). 

Place increased emphasis on maintaining 

“legacy” trees (e.g., large red and white pine, 

red and white oak, etc.) and providing more 

(and larger) standing snags and coarse woody 

debris.

4. Parcels that contain habitats other th an jack 

pine will be managed to emulate patter ns 

resulting from natural disturbances. 

5. Develop resea rch demonst ration sites that 

exemplify ecologically-based jack pine management and illustrate how emulating natural 

conditions can provide multiple species benefits.

6. Develop a map and monitor spotted knapweed 

distribution within and near Kirtland’s Warbler WMA parcels. Initiate removal if the species spreads into nesting areas.

Objective 2.2

Within 5 years of completion of this CCP, develop 

a land consolidation plan for the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA that maintains or increases habitat for 

the warbler and increases management efficiency 

for all agencies involved.

Mechanical treatment of mature jack pine to prepare site 

for replanting of jack pine for Kirtland's Warbler, 

Kirtland's Warbler WMA.

Rationale: The Kirtland’s Warbler WMA consists 

of 125 separate tracts of land located in eight counties of Michigan’s northern Lower Peninsula. Their 

size ranges from 2 to 600 acres and most tracts are 

located within larger tracts of land owned by the 

state of Michigan. There is no local office or dedi-
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

34

cated staff assigned to the Kirtland ’s Warbler 

WMA; staff at the Seney NWR, which is located 

between 150 and 300 miles from most parcels, is 

responsible for administrative oversight. Currently, 

management is accomplished through a cooperative 

agreement between the Service and the Michigan 

DNR. Under this agreement, the Service retains 

ownership and oversight functions on Kirtland’s 

Warbler WMA lands while the Michig an DNR 

determines when timber on a given parcel should be 

cut and regenerated. The Service is responsible for 

the timber harvest and the DNR contracts for 

replanting services.

Consolidation of Kirtland’s Warbler WMA lands 

is being considered to increase management efficiency. Currently the travel distances between 

Seney NWR and WMA lands limits administrative 

oversight and management effectiveness. Due to 

their small size, WMA lands cannot be managed 

independent of the surrounding landscape. Therefore a high degree of coordination with the Michigan 

DNR is required to accomplish any meaningful 

management.

A consolidation has the potential to increase the 

amount of land dedicated to Kirtland’s Warbler 

management. Both state and federal regulations 

require that lands exchanged be equal, based on an 

appraisal value, not acreage. Consequently, if the 

state were to exchange lands not currently managed 

for the Kirtland’s Warbler for Service land with a 

higher appraised value, there would be a net gain 

because the Service would manage its new lands for 

the warbler. This scenario is likely because of the 

variation in land values from county to county.

The Service has completed many land exchanges 

with states, including six with the state of Michigan 

in the last 20 years. The primary purpose of most of 

these exchanges was to improve management efficiency. The Service will always have the option to 

retain the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA name for any 

new lands acquired. Thus, if consolidation is 

achieved, we would effectively be moving the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA to a new location. The most 

significant benefit of consolidation would be increasing habitat to further ensure full recovery and longterm survival the species. In addition, consolidation 

would result in larger parcels owned and managed 

under each agency. Larger parcels allow for 

improved control and prevention of invasive species 

and reduced habitat fragmentation.

The concept of land consolidation is supported by 

all agencies involved in Kirtland’s Warbler management. In general, the Service, the Michigan DNR, 

and the U.S. Forest Service would seek lands to 

exchange amongst the agencies to consolidate ownership and increase the land base managed for the 

Kirtland’s Warbler habitat. Public input on any 

exchange proposal would be sought in compliance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act. All 

parties recognize that any exchanges may take 

years to complete, but they agree it will be worth 

the effort. 

Background:

The idea of consolidating lands has been discussed since inception of the Kirtland’s Warbler 

WMA more that 25 years ago. In a letter dated 

November 13, 1979, from Wayne H. Tody, Deputy 

Director of the Bureau of Resources for the Michigan DNR to Harvey K. Nelson, Regional Director 

for Region 3 of the Service, land consolidation is 

listed as a condition for support of a federal Kirtland’s Warbler land acquisition program in Michigan. The 1991 cooperative agreement between the 

Service and Michigan DNR states that they mutually agree “to exchange interest in land of high nesting habitat capability where necessary for effective 

management.” In addition, we understand that the 

Michigan DNR is working to implement a Land 

Consolidation Strategy. We believe that the CCP 

planning process and the Land Consolidation Strategy make the timing right to fu lly explore land consolidation. 

On February 21, 2007, members of the Kirtland’s 

Warbler Recovery Team met at the Michigan DNR, 

Gaylord Operations Center, at the Service’s request 

to discuss the CCP and alternatives for future management of the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA. Nearly all 

members of the team attended as well as additional 

staff from local DNR offices, several Service field 

stations, and representatives from the U.S. Forest 

Service and two universities. The primary purpose 

of this meeting was to explore the possibility of consolidating the widespread land holdings of the Kirtland’s W arbler WMA for more efficient 

management by all agencies that manage land for 

Kirtland’s Warbler habitat.

It was decided at the February meeting that a 

smaller interagency committee should convene to 

formulate specific land consolidation proposals. The 

members of this committee should be land manag-
Table 5: Sites Identified for Potential Exchange

Location Concept Potential Sites

Northern Lower Peninsula Large acreage of Service lands currently 

exists. Exchanges would include Michigan 

DNR and Service lands only and would create fewer and larger parcels.

 Pere Cheney Management Area - 

Staley Lake Mgmt. Area, 

 NW Ogemaw Management Area, 

 Leota Management Area,

 Big Creek Management Area

Northern Lower Peninsula Create fewer and larger parcels closer to 

Seney NWR, but still within the northern 

lower Peninsula. Exchanges would include 

only Michigan DNR and Service lands.

 Clear Lake

Northern Lower Peninsula Consolidate into fewer, larger parcels and 

include Service, Forest Service and Michigan DNR lands.

 Wurtsmith Block to Forest Service, 

Michigan DNR gets all Service lands, 

and Service gets unidentified Forest 

Service lands (multiple compartments).

Upper Peninsula Maintain close proximity to Seney NWR; 

opportunity to use prescribed fire as a management tool; minimal impact to existing 

ORV trails. Consolidation will only involve 

Service and Michigan DNR lands.

 M-94 southwest of Seney NWR,

 M-28 lands north of Seney NWR,

 Danaher Plains Complex,

 Ishpeming Area,

 Big Two-Hearted River Country,

 Private lands purchased in the Upper 

Peninsula by Michigan DNR going to 

the Service, Michigan DNR getting 

northern Lower Peninsula Service 

lands,

 Baraga Plains,

 Yellow Dog Plains.

Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

35

ers or biologists with specific knowledge of affected 

lands and Kirtland’s Warbler management. The preliminary proposals will then be presented to each 

agency’s leadership for review and recommenda -

tion. 

The interagency committee met on April 10, 2008 

in Grayling, Michigan. Attendees included three 

representatives from Michigan DNR, two from the 

U.S. Forest Service and three from the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. The committee concluded this 

meeting with a list of ideas for future land consolidation. These ideas are presented in the following 

paragraphs as a set of guidelines. These guidelines 

may be refined as individual agency discussions 

move forward and specific planning continues in the 

next several years.

Land Consolidation Guidelines:

1. Lands must be manageable for Kirtland’ s 

Warbler (i.e. sites of sufficient size with jack 

pine as a major constituent of seral stages).

2. Must im prove manageme nt efficiency for all 

agencies involved. 

3. No substantial buildings or improvements.

4. Sites do n ot contai n hazardo us materials or 

environmental contaminants.

Sites Identified for Possible Exchange:

The sites described in Table 5 were suggested by 

the interagency committee that met in April 2008 as 

possibilities to explore for an exchange. These sites 

are mentioned for illustration purposes only; no official endorsement has been sought or obtained 

through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

Michigan DNR or U.S. Forest Service. 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

36

Strategies:

1. Interagency team will follow land consolidation guidelines to establish priority exchange 

scenarios.

2. Land apprai sals, following federal and st ate 

guidelines, will be conducted on all lands identified for exchange.

Goal 3: People

Encourage the public to explore jack pine ecosystems and 

learn about its associated wildlife.

Objective 3.1: Hunting

Provide the public with opportunities to hunt on 

Kirtland’s Warbler WMA lands in accordance 

with state and federal regulations. 

Rationale: Kirtland’s Warbler WMA is open for 

hunting of all legal game species in Michigan per 

state regulations. However, little is known regarding the statistics regarding hunting use. Due to the 

nature of the habitats at the Management Area, 

most hunting is likely confined to white-tailed deer, 

Wild Turkey, Ruffed Grouse, snowshoe hare, American Woodcock, and black bear. In early successional 

stands (recent clear cuts waiting regeneration for 

Kirtland’s Warbler) hunting is probably confined to 

Wild Turkey and white-tailed deer. As stands 

mature and become close-canopy with more mature 

trees, more species are hunted and more hunting 

likely occurs. The use of bait, snowmobiles, or ATVs 

are prohibited on Service lands. 

Strategies:

1. Increase law enforcem ent on Ser vice properties to ensure consistency with federal hunting regulations (e.g. no deer baiting, 

permanent blinds, bear hunting with dogs, 

and off-road vehicle use).

2. In cooperation with the Michigan DNR, pro -

duce maps to show the hunting public areas 

subject to federal regulations.

Objective 3.2: Wildlife Observation, Wildlife 

Photography, Environmental Education and 

Environmental Interpretation

Within 5 years of approval of the plan, increase 

opportunities for wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation to correspond with an increase (from 2008 

level) in WMA visitation. The level of knowledge 

about, and the positive attitude toward, the WMA 

will increase among visitors throughout the next 

15 years.

Rationale: The majority of the visitor services 

that are provided by the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA 

are interwoven into the yearly Kirtland’s Warbler 

tours conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s East Lansing Field Office, Michigan Audubon 

Society, and the U. S. Forest Service. According to 

Service records, during 2008 a total of 775 people 

from 40 states and three foreign countries attended 

a tour to see Kirtland’s Warbler and hear about habitat management. These tours occur yearly from 

May 15 to July 4. 

Interpretive sign at Kirtland’s Warbler WMA. U.S. Fish 

& Wildlife Service photo.

Although parcels inhabited by Kirtland’s Warbler 

during the breeding season are closed to entry, 

uninhabitated areas and the network of two-track 

roads that connect them afford photographers of all 

skill levels opportunities to photograph wildlife and 

hiking and biking activities.

Strategies:

1. Continue ac tive support of the annual Kirt -

land’s Warbler Festival and Tours.

2. Encourage wildlife-dependent activities o n 

Kirtland’s Warbler WMA lands by providing 

outreach materials, such as brochures and 

displays, at local public events and in community facilities.
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

37

Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

New and Existing Projects

This CCP outlines an ambitious course of action 

for the future management of the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA. The ability to enhance wildlife habitats 

on the Area and provide additional quality public 

use opportunities will require a significant commitment of staff and funding from the Service. The 

WMA 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 projects for Kirtland’s Warbler 

WMA, as chosen by the Seney NWR staff and listed 

in the Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS). 

Staffing, maintenance and operation needs will 

change if land consolidation occurs in the future.

Kirtland’s Warbler WMA Operating 

Needs Projects

Enhance Refuge Management and Administration

 Hire an onsight resource specialist to coordinate management efforts, interface with the 

public and provide oversight of WMA lands. 

Estimated cost: $150,000

 Hire a technician to conduct wildlife surveys, 

post boundaries and oversee timber harvest 

and habitat regeneration. Estimated cost: 

$120,000

 Post boundaries of the WMA . Cur rently no 

boundaries are posted. Surveys need to be 

conducted and posts and signs purchased. A 

contract to post the boundary, in accordance 

with the Refuge Mannual, would be awarded. 

Estimated cost: $200,000

 Provide for public use by designating trails, 

constructing observation blinds and developing interpretive signs. Estimated cost: 

$100,000 

 Habitat regeneration is a critical component 

of managing Kirtland’s Warbler populations. 

Given the current size of the WMA, 300 acres 

would need to be regenerated annually at a 

minimum cost of $100 per acre. Estimated 

cost: $30,000

 Law enforcement is a necess ary component 

of land management at the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA. Funds are needed to hire a fulltime law enforcement officer to ensure the 

protection of nesting areas during the breeding season, that hunting regulations are followed and that habitat is not destroyed by 

illegal timber harvest, off-road vehicles or 

other means. Estimated cost: $150,000

A contractor plants trees at Kirtland’s Warbler WMA. 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service photo.

 Fire management is necessary to protect and 

manage habitat. A Fire Management Officer 

would be hired to coordinate fire suppression 
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

38

and prescribed burning with State and Service officials. Estimated cost: $200,000

 Establish an office and hire admin istrative 

support. To fully manage the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA an office would need to be established to house the Resource Specialist and 

Technician. This office would need an Office 

Automation Clerk to manage the office and 

serve as a contact point for the public. Estimated cost: $100,000

Current and Future Staffing 

Requirements

The Kirtland’s Warbler WMA does not have a 

permanent staff. The staff at Seney NWR overs ees 

the WMA and provides limited services on an asneeded basis. These duties include, but are not limited to, administration of timber sales, coordinating 

with the state on harvesting and replanting efforts, 

participation in Kirtland’s Warbler Recovery Team 

efforts, research, the Kirtland’s Warber census, 

Cowbird trapping, public education and on-site law 

enforcement. Full-time oversight may be required in 

the future if the land holdings of the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA are consolidated.

Step-down Management Plans

Step-down management plans describe specific 

actions that support the accomplishment of objectives. The Kirtland’s Warbler WMA does not 

require many step-down plans due to relatively 

small size of properties, limited activities and the 

lack of staff and funding. The objectives and strategies outlined in this CCP will provide adeq uate 

detail for most of the programs at the Kirtland’s 

Warbler WMA. 

Partnership Opportunities

Partnerships have become an essential element 

for the successful accomplishments of Kirtland’s 

Warbler WMA goals, objectives, and strategies. The 

objectives outlined in this CCP need the support 

and the partnerships of federal, state and local 

agencies, non-governmental organizations and individual citizens. This broad-based approach to managing fish and wildlife resources extends beyond 

social and political boundaries and requires a broad 

foundation of support. The Kirtland’s Warbler 

WMA will continue to seek creative partnership 

opportunities to achieve its vision for the future.

Notable existing partners include:

 Michigan DNR

 East L ansing Fi eld O ffice, U .S. Fi sh a nd 

Wildlife Service

 U.S. Forest Service

 Kirtland Community College

 Michigan Audubon Society

 The Nature Conservancy 

Baiting a Brown-headed Cowbird trap at Kirtland’s 

Warbler WMA. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service photo.

Wilderness Review

As part of the CCP process, we reviewed lands 

within the legislative boundaries of Kirtland’s Warbler WMA for wilderness suitability. No lands were 

found suitable for designation as Wilderness as 

defined in the Wilderness Act of 1964. The WMA 

does not contain 5,000 contiguous, roadless acres 

nor does it have any units of sufficient size to make 
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

39

their preservation practicable as Wilderness. Lands 

acquired for the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA have 

been substantially affected by humans, particularly 

through intense forestry, agriculture and transportation infrastructure.

Monitoring and Evaluation

The direction set forth in this CCP and specifically identified strategies and projects will be monitored throughout the life of this plan. On a periodic 

basis, the Regional Office will assemble a station 

review team whose purpose will be to visit the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA and evaluate current activities 

in light of this plan. The team will review all aspects 

of management, including direction, accomplishments and funding. The goals and objectives presented in this CCP will provide the baseline from 

which this field station will be evaluated.

Climate Change Evaluation

The potential impacts of climate change will 

receive increasing attention and study during the 

life of this plan. All strategies for plan implementation, including consolidation of land holdings of the 

Kirtland’s Warbler WMA, will be periodically evaluated in the light of new predictions and progress in 

carbon emission reduction.

Plan Review and Revision

The CCP for Kirtland’s Warbler WMA is meant 

to provide guidance to 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.

Environmental Assessment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

41

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Kirtland’s Warbler

Wildlife Management Area

Environmental Assessment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

43

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................................................49

1.1. Background ........................................................................................................................................................49

1.2. Purpose ..............................................................................................................................................................49

1.3. Need for Action .................................................................................................................................................49

1.4. Kirtland’s Warbler WMA Goals ........................................................................................................................51

1.5. Vision Statement ...............................................................................................................................................51

1.6. Decision Framework ..........................................................................................................................................51

1.7. Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility ..............................................................................................51

1.8. Scoping of the Issues ........................................................................................................................................51

1.8.1. Kirtland’s Warbler WMA Issues, Concerns and Opportunities ... ..........................................................51

1.8.1.1. Habitat Management ...............................................................................................................51

1.8.1.2. Wildlife Management ..............................................................................................................52

1.8.1.3. Public Use ................................................................................................................................52

Chapter 2: Description of the Alternatives ..............................................................................................................53

2.1. Formulation of Alternatives ..............................................................................................................................53

2.2. Management Alternatives ................................................................................................................................53

2.2.1. Alternative 1: Current Direction of Habitat Management (No Action) ..................................................53

2.2.2. Alternative 2: Management from an Ecological Perspective .................................................................53

2.2.3. Alternative 3: Ecological Management and Land Ownership Consolidation (Preferred Alternative) ...53

2.2.4. Comparison of No Action and Preferred Alternatives ............................................................................54

Chapter 3: Affected Environment ..............................................................................................................................59

3.1. Introduction . ......................................................................................................................................................59

3.2. Archeological and Cultural Values ...................................................................................................................59

3.3. Social and Economic Context ............................................................................................................................59

3.4. Natural Resources .............................................................................................................................................59

3.4.1. Habitats .. ................................................................................................................................................59

3.4.1.1. Wetlands ..................................................................................................................................59

3.4.1.2. Uplands .. ..................................................................................................................................59

3.4.2. Wildlife ... ................................................................................................................................................60

3.4.2.1. Birds . ........................................................................................................................................60

3.4.2.2. Mammals .. ...............................................................................................................................60

3.4.2.3. Fish ...........................................................................................................................................60

3.4.2.4. Reptiles and Amphibians .........................................................................................................60

3.4.2.5. Threatened and Endangered Species ......................................................................................60

3.5. Visitor Services .................................................................................................................................................61
Environmental Assessment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

44

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences ...............................................................................................................62

4.1. Effects Common to All Alternatives ..................................................................................................................62

4.1.1. Environmental Justice ............................................................................................................................62

4.1.2. Climate Change Impacts ........................................................................................................................62

4.1.3. Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................................62

4.1.4. Other Common Effects ............................................................................................................................63

4.2. Cumulative Impacts Analysis ...........................................................................................................................63

Chapter 5: List of Preparers ........................................................................................................................................64

Chapter 6: Consultation and Coordination with Stakeholders ............................................................................65

Figure 1: Location of Kirtland’s Warbler WMA ...............................................................................................................50

Table 1: Comparison of Objectives and Environmental Consequences by Management Alternatives ............. ............55

Table 2: Bird Species Strongly Associated with Young (< 5 years old), 

KW (5-23 years old), and old (> 23 years old) Stands of the KWWMA ........................................................60
Finding of No Significant Impact

Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

for the Kirtland's Warbler V/ildlife Management Area, Michigan

An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to identify management strategies to meet

the conservation goals of the Kirtland's'Warbler V/ildlife Management Area. The EA examined

the environmental consequences that each management alternative could have on the quality of

the physical, biological, and human environment, as required by the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The EA evaluated three alternatives for the future management of

Kirtland's Warbler WMA.

The altemative selected for implementation on the refuge is Alternative 3. The preferred

alternative for Kirtland's Warbler WMA over the next 15 years directs management towards a

more ecologically broad and holistic jack pine ecosystem management standpoint based on

benchmark conditions derived from jack pine stands regenerated by wildfire. This alternative

would include management practices that place a greatw emphasis on ecological integrity and

better emulating wildfire-produced jack pine stand composition and structural patterns and

resulting biodiversity. An increased emphasis would also occur within law enforcement and

visitor use. Land exchanges with the State, and possibly the U.S. Forest Service, to consolidate

State and WMA parcels would be explored. Proposed land exchanges would likely increase the

total area of land managed for Kirtland's 'Warbler, as well as increase management efÍiciency by

both Federal and State agencies.

For reasons presented above and below, and based on an evaluation of the information contained

in the Environmental Assessment, we have determined that the action of adopting Alternative 3

as the management altemative for Kirtland's Warbler WMA is not a major federal action which

would significantly affect the quality of the human environment, within the meaning of Section

102 (2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Additional Reasons:

1. Future management actions will have a neutral 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

Conservation Plan

Regional Director nnT hvl

Environmental Assessment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

47

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPREHENSIVE 

CONSERVATION PLAN FOR KIRTLAND’S WARBLER WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA

Abstract: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to implement a Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan (CCP) for Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area (WMA) located in the northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan. This Environmental Assessment considers the biological, environmental and socioeconomic 

effects that implementing the CCP (which is the preferred alternative in this assessment), or an alternative, 

would have on the issues and concerns identified during the planning process. The purpose of the proposed 

action is to establish the management direction for the WMA for the next 15 years. The management action 

will be achieved by implementing a detailed set of goals, objectives, and strategies described in the CCP.

Responsible Agency and Official:

Thomas O. Melius, Regional Director 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Bishop Henry Whipple Building 

1 Federal Drive

Ft. Snelling, MN 55111

Contacts for additional information about this project:

Tracy Casselman, Manager

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area

1674 Refuge Entrance Road

Seney, MI 49883

Office Phone: (906) 586-9851

Fax: (906) 586-3800 

Gary Muehlenhardt

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

NWRS/Conservation Planning

Bishop Henry Whipple Building 

1 Federal Drive

Ft. Snelling, MN 55111

Environmental Assessment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

49

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

1.1. Background

The purpose of the proposed action is to specify a 

management direction for the Kirtland’s Warbler 

Wildlife Management Area (WMA) for the next 15 

years. This management direction will be described 

in detail through a set of goals, objectives, and strategies in a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP).

Kirtland’s Warbler WMA was established in 1980 

in response to the need for more land dedicated to 

the recovery of this species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service established Kirtland’s Warbler WMA, in 

part, based upon the recommendations of the Kirtland's Warbler Recovery Team. The original goal 

was to acquire 7,500 acres of land on which habitat 

would be managed for the benefit of Kirtland's Warbler. At present, the area contains 125 separate 

tracts totaling 6,684 acres. While management for 

Kirtland’s Warbler is paramount, the WM A provides habitat for a diversity of wildlife species 

(including a number of Regional Priority Species), 

both migratory and non-migratory.

We prepared this Environmental Assessment 

(EA) using guidelines established under the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. 

NEPA requires us to examine the effects of proposed actions on the natural and human environment. In the following sections we describe three 

alternatives for future management of WMA lands, 

the environmental consequences of each alternative, 

and our preferred management direction. We have 

selected our preferred alternative based on environmental consequences and the ability to achieve the 

WMA’s purpose.

1.2. Purpose

The purpose of the proposed action is to specify 

management directions for Kirtland’s Warbler 

WMA over the coming 15 years. These management 

directions will be described in detail through a distinct set of goals, objectives, and strategies in a CCP.

The action is needed because adequate, longterm management direction does not currently exist 

for the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA. Management is 

now guided by various general policies and shortterm plans. The action is also needed to address current management issues and to satisfy the legisla -

tive mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997, which requires 

the preparation of a CCP for all national wildlife refuge system lands in the United States.

1.3. Need for Action

The CCP ultimately derived from this EA will 

establish the overall management direction for the 

Kirtland’s Warbler WMA over the next 15 years. 

The WMA currently lacks a long-term management 

plan. Instead, management is broadly guided at 

present by general Service policies, by interpreting 

the official purposes for which the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA was created, and by short-term, stepdown management plans. 

The action is needed to address current management issues and to satisfy the legislative mandates 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, which requires the preparation of 

a CCP for all national wildlife refuge lands in the 

United States.

This EA will present three management alternatives for the future of Kirtland’s Warbler WMA. The 

preferred alternative will be selected based on its 

ability to meet identified goals. These goals may 

also be considered as the primar y need for action. 

Goals for the WMA were developed by the planning 

team and encompass all aspects of management, 

including wildlife management, habitat management, and public use. Each of the management 

alternatives described in this EA will be able to at 

least minimally achieve these goals. 
Figure 1: Kirtland’s Warbler WMA Location

Environmental Assessment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

50
Environmental Assessment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

51

1.4. Kirtland’s Warbler WMA 

Goals

 Goal 1: Wildlife – Ma nagement will play an 

integral role in the recovery of the Kirtland’s 

Warbler. Kirtland’s Warbler WMA lands will 

support the broad array of wildlife species 

that are dependent on each seral stage of the 

jack pine ecosystems (from barrens to 

mature jack pine).

 Goal 2: Habitat – Manage habitat to support 

Kirtland’s Warblers and associated wildlife 

species by providing near benchmark conditions across all seral stages of the jack pine 

ecosystem. Employ sound management 

practices that emulate patterns of structure 

and composition resulting from wildfire an d 

other natural disturbances.

 Goal 3: People – Encourage t he public to 

explore jack pine ecosystems and learn about 

its associated wildlife.

1.5. Vision Statement

The Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management 

Area will be managed to promote jack pine ecosystems that contribute to a sustainable population of Kirtland’s Warblers and associated 

wildlife species. Lands will be actively managed 

to mimic historical disturbance regimes and 

resulting structural and compositional attributes, such as dense stands of jack pine with 

barren-like openings, snags and coarse woody 

debris. Research will be encouraged and the 

public will be invited to learn about jack pine 

ecosystems and the wildlife they support.

1.6. Decision Framework

The Regional Director for the Midwest Region 

(Region 3 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) will 

need to make two decisions based on this EA: (1) 

select an alternative future management, and (2) 

determine if the selected alternative is a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment, thus requiring preparation of 

an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The 

planning team has recommended Alternative 3 

(Ecological Management and Land Ownership Consolidation) to the Regional Director. The CCP was 

developed for implementation based on this recommendation.

1.7. Authority, Legal 

Compliance, and Compatibility

The National Wildlife Refuge System includes 

federal lands managed primarily to provide habitat 

for a diversity of fish, wi ldlife and plant species. 

National wildlife refuges, and a few wildlife management areas such as Kirtland’s Warbler WMA, are 

established under many different authorities and 

funding sources for a variety of purposes. The purposes for Kirtland’s Warbler WMA were derived 

from the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Appendix 

D of the CCP contains a list of the key laws, orders 

and regulations that provide a framework for the 

proposed action.

1.8. Scoping of the Issues

The CCP planning process began in March 2006 

and included internal discussions, a meeting with 

the Kirtland’s Warbler Recovery Team, and a public 

open house. Please see Chapter 2 in the CCP for 

details of the issue scoping process.

1.8.1. Kirtland’s Warbler WMA Issues, 

Concerns and Opportunities

The following list of issue topics was generated 

by internal scoping, the public open house sessions 

and program reviews.

1.8.1.1. Habitat Management

 Forest M anagement: How can we ch ange 

current silvicultural practices to better emulate historic conditions?

 Fire Management: How can we restore pre -

scribed fire to Kirtland's Warbler WMA 

lands?

 Land C onsolidation: Kirtland’s W arbler 

WMA parcels are inholdings within larger 

Michigan DNR parcels. Administration and 

habitat management would be more efficient 

if WMA parcels were consolidated into 

larger blocks by exchanging for other DNR 

or U.S. Forest Service lands.
Environmental Assessment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

52

1.8.1.2. Wildlife Management

 Brown-headed C owbird M anagement: Are 

there ways other than trapping to deal with 

Brown-headed Cowbirds?

 Kirtland’s Warbler Census: Will we be able 

to census birds each year?

 Delisting: What can we do from a land management standpoint to facilitate delisting of 

the species?

 Biodiversity: What can be done to improve 

habitat for native species other than the 

Kirtland’s Warbler? 

1.8.1.3. Public Use

 Hunting: Kirtland’s Warbler WMA units are 

open to hunting per state regulations. Some 

hunting practices are generally not allowed 

on Refuge System lands such as baiting, construction of blinds, all-terrain vehicle (ATV) 

use, and using dogs to hunt bears.

 Environmental Edu cation: If land 

exchange/consolidation occurs it would 

change outreach, interpretation, environmental education, staffing needs and opportunities.

 Residential Deve lopment: R ural housing 

construction causes direct habitat loss and 

complicates prescribed burning.
Environmental Assessment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

53

Chapter 2: Description of the Alternatives

2.1. Formulation of 

Alternatives

Based on the issues, concerns and opportunities 

we heard during the scoping process, the Planning 

Team developed three alternative management scenarios that could be used at Kirtland’s Warbler 

WMA. These alternatives and the consequences of 

adopting each are presented in this Environmental 

Assessment. The alternatives were formulated 

under the assumption that staffing and bud gets 

would remain constant or grow slowly throughout 

the life of the Plan. 

The three management alternatives were developed to address most of the issues, concerns, and 

opportunities identified during the CCP planning 

process.

2.2. Management Alternatives

2.2.1. Alternative 1: Current Direction 

of Habitat Management (No Action)

The current management direction of Kirtland’s 

Warbler WMA would be maintain ed under this 

alternative. For NEPA purposes, this is referred to 

as the “No Action” alternative, a misnomer as some 

changes will occur over the next 15 years. Nonetheless, in Alternative 1, intensive management of 

existing jack pine stands would continue to occur in 

close cooperation with the Michigan DNR, with the 

primary objective to produce dense jack pine plantations for Kirtland’s Warbler breeding habitat. The 

WMA staff and Michigan DNR land managers 

would continue to monitor habitat prescription 

effects and make improvements in jack pine habitat 

management as it pertains primarily to Kirtland’s 

Warbler. Public use would follow the current direction and be linked to uses of the surrounding state 

lands. Environmental education and outreach would 

be conducted primarily by other agencies and nongovernment organizations.

2.2.2. Alternative 2: Management from 

an Ecological Perspective

Alternative 2 would seek to make changes from 

the current high intensity habitat management that 

produces jack pine plantations for Kirtland’s Warbler by trenching and planting. Future management 

would continue to involve the Michigan DNR, but 

would use a more ecologically broad and holistic 

jack pine ecosystem management approach based 

on benchmark conditions derived from jack pine 

stands regenerated by wildfire. This alternative 

would include management practices that place a 

greater emphasis on ecological integrity. Management would include emulating wildfire-produced 

jack pine stand composition and structural patterns 

that result in greater biodiversity. Timber harvests 

would try to better emulate wildfire-produced stand 

conditions and a range of regeneration options 

would be used, including prescribed fire when and 

where possible. An increased emphasis would also 

occur within law enforcement and visitor use. 

Enforcement of hunting regulations, trespass, and 

other violations would likely require more staff time 

and year-round presence. Visitor use would be facilitated by delineating the boundaries of some properties, developing interpretive signs and conducting 

outreach to surrounding communities. 

2.2.3. Alternative 3: Ecological 

Management and Land Ownership 

Consolidation (Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 3 would seek to manage existing 

lands as suggested in Alternative 2, but would also 

explore land exchanges with the state (and possibly 

U.S. Forest Service) to consolidate DNR and WMA 

parcels. Proposed land exchanges would likely 

increase the total area of land managed for Kirtland’s Warbler, as well as increase management efficiency by both federal and state agencies. Existing 

lands and any new lands acquired through exchange 

would be managed to benefit the Kirtland’s Warbler 

and other native flora and fauna of jack pine ecosystems. However, the management of jack pine stands 
Environmental Assessment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

54

would shift away from plantations toward a more 

ecologically-based approach. As an example, if consolidation were to occur, and the Service obtained 

upland jack pine stands in the eastern Upper Peninsula, prescribed fire would be a more likely management tool. Guidelines for selection of lands for 

consolidation are found in Chapter 4 of the CCP. 

2.2.4. Comparison of No Action and 

Preferred Alternatives

Under Alternative 1, the Current Direction or No 

Action Alternative, little change will occur overall in 

how Kirtland's Warbler WMA is managed and what 

wildlife species benefit from this management. The 

general management scheme will include clearcuts 

in jack pine-dominated stands, with follow-up treatment consisting of Michigan DNR trenching and 

hand-planting of jack pine seedlings. No land consolidation is proposed and Kirtland's Warbler WMA 

will continue to exist in a landscape of multiple ownerships. Those species for which habitats are being 

provided will continue to have their needs met by 

management actions. However, the small size of 

WMA tracts will preclude management actions that 

directly benefit many Regional Conservation Priority Species, especially those that inhabit only the 

largest patches of a habitat such as Upland Sandpiper and Northern Harrier.

Alternative 3, the Prefer red Alternative, will 

result in substantially more change in how Kirtland's Warbler WMA is managed and what wildlife 

species benefit from these actions. These changes 

will likely result due to an increased focus on 

enhancing residual stand structure after trees are 

harvested (i.e., increasing the number of snags 

retained) and because land consolidation will allow 

the possible incorporation of prescribed fire into 

management of larger patches of jack pi ne. This is 

especially true if consolidation occurs within 

regional landscape with more public lands (e.g., the 

Upper Peninsula).

The management actions described in Alternative 3 would likely benefit more area-sensitive 

Regional Conservation Priority species and better 

emulate the natural biodiversity of jack pine ecosystems. However, relatively little shift in wildlife species composition would occur. Species shifts would 

occur if future land consolidation includes obtaining 

larger patches of xeric, jack pine-appropriate lands 

in the Upper Peninsula (Probst et al. 2003) . Prescribed fire as a management tool would likely 

increase and this would allow for more heterogeneity in terms of resulting jack pine stand structure. 

Range-restricted wildlife species that would either 

be added to the species composition of Kirtland’s 

Warbler WMA or increase in abundance include 

Sharp-tailed Grouse, Palm Warbler and Spruce 

Grouse. Species that would likely drop out include 

Prairie Warbler. Overall, a significant shift would 

occur if exchanges happen between existing land 

holdings in the northern Lower Peninsula and the 

eastern Upper Peninsula. Species to primarily benefit include those dependent on openland or grassland-shrubland-early successional forests.

 
Environmental Assessment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

55

Table 1: Comparison of Objectives and Environmental Consequences by Management Alternatives

Alternative 1: Current Direction of 

Habitat Management (No Action)

Alternative 2: Management from 

an Ecological Perspective

Alternative 3: Ecological 

Management and Land Ownership 

Consolidation (Preferred Alternative)

Goal 1: Wildlife – Management will play an integral role in the recovery of the Kirtland’s Warbler. Kirtland’s Warbler WMA lands will 

support the broad array of wildlife species that are dependent on each seral stage of the jack pine ecosystems (from barrens to mature jack 

pine).

Objective 1.1: Continue to be an active 

partner in the Kirtland’s Warbler recovery 

effort.

Objective 1.1: Same as Alternative 1 Objective 1.1: Same as Alternative 1.

Strategies:

 Participate in the annual Kirtland’s 

Warbler Census to aid in monitoring the 

population trends.

 Work with Ecological Services to continue annual trapping efforts to remove 

Brown-headed Cowbirds from nesting 

areas and explore new ways to eliminate cowbirds parasitism of Kirtland’s 

Warbler nests. 

 Coordinate harvest and regeneration of 

jack pine, on Kirtland’s Warbler WMA 

lands with the, Michigan DNR to insure 

that the Services lands are contributing 

to the Kirtland’s Warbler recovery 

effort.

 Conduct and participate in research to 

better understand the ecology and management of Kirtland’s Warbler populations.

Strategies:

Same as Alternative 1

Strategies:

Same as Alternative 1

Objective 1.2: By 2016, implement a monitoring program to track the presence, 

abundance, population trends, and/or habitat associations of Trust Resources and 

determine ways to emulate natural species 

diversity.

Objective 1.2: Same as Alternative 1. Objective 1.2: Same as Alternative 1.

Strategies:

 Determine the presence, abundance 

and habitat associations of Trust 

Resources currently using Kirtland’s 

Warbler WMA lands.

 Develop and implement a monitoring 

program to track population trends, 

and/or habitat associations of Trust 

Resources.

Continued on next page

Strategies:

 Same as Alternative 1 but including:

 Hire a Refuge Manager to be 

located in the WMA.

 Provide facilities for local staff 

including an office and storage 

areas. 

Strategies:

Same as Alternative 1 
Environmental Assessment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

56

Objective 1.2 Strategies: Continued

 Conduct annual reviews of trends to 

determine if there are priorities for 

research or management.

 If a Trust Resource research or management issue is identified, initiate 

action at the local level. If the issue goes 

beyond the boundary of the Kirtland’s 

Warbler WMA, take lead role in coordinating with federal, state, and NGO 

partners to develop broader scale projects to resolve issues. 

Goal 2: Habitat – Manage habitat to support Kirtland’s Warblers and associated wildlife species by providing near benchmark conditions 

across all seral stages of the jack pine ecosystem. Employ sound management practices that emulate patterns of structure and 

composition resulting from wildfire and other natural disturbances.

Objective 2.1: Continue to manage jack 

pine stands in conjunction with Michigan 

DNR, but place greater emphasis on promoting ecological integrity within man -

aged stands.

Objective 2.1: Continue to manage jack 

pine stands in conjunction with Michigan DNR, but place greater emphasis 

on promoting ecological integrity 

within managed stands. Emulate natural structural and compositional patterns of jack pine forests produced 

through wildfire.

Objective 2.1: Continue to manage jack 

pine stands in conjunction with Michigan 

DNR, but place greater emphasis on promoting ecological integrity within managed stands.

Strategies:

 Work with federal, state and local officials to garner support for the use of 

prescribed fire in the management of 

jack pine to create Kirtland’s Warbler 

nesting habitat.

 Work with federal, state and local fire 

officials to employ prescribed fire as a 

management tool where it can be 

applied safely without risk to life and 

property.

 Elsewhere, attempt to emulate the compositional and structural patterns of 

jack pine stands resulting from wildfire 

through mechanical treatments (i.e. 

timber sales). Place increased emphasis 

on maintaining “legacy” trees (e.g., 

large red and white pine, red and white 

oak, etc.) and providing more (and 

larger) standing snags and coarse 

woody debris.

Continued on next page

Strategies:

Same as Alternative 1

Strategies:

Same as Alternative 1.

Table 1: Comparison of Objectives and Environmental Consequences by Management Alternatives

Alternative 1: Current Direction of 

Habitat Management (No Action)

Alternative 2: Management from 

an Ecological Perspective

Alternative 3: Ecological 

Management and Land Ownership 

Consolidation (Preferred Alternative)
Environmental Assessment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

57

Strategies:

 Parcels that contain habitats other than 

jack pine will be managed to emulate 

patterns resulting from natural disturbances. 

 Develop research demonstration sites 

that exemplify ecologically-based jack 

pine management and illustrate how 

emulating natural conditions can provide multiple species benefits.

 Develop a map and monitor spotted 

knapweed distribution within and near 

Kirtland’s Warbler WMA parcels. Initiate removal if the species spreads into 

nesting areas.

Not Applicable Not Applicable Objective 2.2: Land Consolidation –

Within 5 years of completion of this CCP, 

develop a land consolidation plan for the 

Kirtland’s Warbler WMA that maintains or 

increase habitat for the warbler and 

increase management efficiency for all 

agencies involved.

Strategies:

 Interagency team will follow land consolidation guidelines to establish priority exchange scenarios

 Land appraisals, following federal and 

state guidelines, will be conducted on all 

lands identified for exchange.

Goal 3: People – Encourage the public to explore jack pine ecosystems and learn about its associated wildlife.

Objective 3.1 – Hunting: Provide the public with opportunities to hunt on Kirtland’s 

Warbler WMA lands in accordance with 

state and federal regulations. 

Objective 3.1 – Hunting: Same as 

Alternative 1. 

Objective 3.1 – Hunting: Same as Alternative 1.

Strategies:

 Increase law enforcement on Service 

properties to ensure consistency with 

federal hunting regulations (e.g. no 

deer baiting, permanent blinds, bear 

hunting with dogs, and off-road vehicle 

use).

 In cooperation with the Michigan DNR, 

produce maps to show the hunting public areas subject to federal regulations.

Strategies:

Same as Alternative 1 but including:

 Hire a Refuge Operations Specialist with law enforcement credentials.

 Post the boundaries of WMA parcels with appropriate refuge signs.

 Develop interpretive signs and place 

them at key locations.

Strategies:

Same as Alternative 1.

Table 1: Comparison of Objectives and Environmental Consequences by Management Alternatives

Alternative 1: Current Direction of 

Habitat Management (No Action)

Alternative 2: Management from 

an Ecological Perspective

Alternative 3: Ecological 

Management and Land Ownership 

Consolidation (Preferred Alternative)
Environmental Assessment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

58

Objective 3.2 – Wildlife Observation, 

Wildlife Photography, Environmental 

Education and Environmental Interpretation: Within 5 years of approval of the 

plan, increase opportunities for wildlife 

observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation to correspond with an increase (from 2008 level) in 

WMA visitation. The level of knowledge 

about, and the positive attitude toward, the 

WMA will increase among visitors 

throughout the next 15 years.

Objective 3.2 – Wildlife Observation, 

Wildlife Photography, Environmental Education and Environmental 

Interpretation: Within 10 years of 

approval of the plan, increase opportunities for wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and 

interpretation to correspond with an 

increase (from 2008 level) in WMA visitation. The level of knowledge about, 

and the positive attitude toward, the 

WMA will increase among visitors 

throughout the next 15 years.

Objective 3.2 – Wildlife Observation, 

Wildlife Photography, Environmental 

Education and Environmental Interpretation: Same as Alternative 1.

Strategies:

 Continue active support of the annual 

Kirtland’s Warbler Festival and Tours.

 Encourage wildlife-dependent activities on Kirtland’s Warbler WMA lands 

by providing outreach materials, such 

as brochures and displays, at local public events and in community facilities.

Strategies:

Same as Alternative 1 but including: 

 Hire a full-time Visitor Services specialist to increase community outreach and involvement.

Strategies:

Same as Alternative 1.

Table 1: Comparison of Objectives and Environmental Consequences by Management Alternatives

Alternative 1: Current Direction of 

Habitat Management (No Action)

Alternative 2: Management from 

an Ecological Perspective

Alternative 3: Ecological 

Management and Land Ownership 

Consolidation (Preferred Alternative)
Environmental Assessment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

59

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

This chapter includes a brief overview of the 

affected environments of Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area. More detail is contained in 

Chapter 3 of the CCP itself. 

3.1. Introduction

Kirtland’s Warbler WMA was established in 1980 

in response to the need for more land dedicated to 

the restoration of this species. The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service established the wildlife management area, in part, based on the recommendations 

of the Kirtland's Warbler Recovery Team. The original goal was to acquire 7,500 acres of land on which 

habitat would be managed for the benefit of Kirtland's Warbler. At present, the area contains 125 

separate tracts totaling 6,684 acres. While management for Kirtland’s Warbler is paramount, the 

WMA provides habitat for a diversity of wildlife species, both migratory and non-migratory.

3.2. Archeological and 

Cultural Values 

No prehistoric resources or historic resources eligible for the National Register of Historic Places 

have been found on Kirtland’s Warbler WMA properties. Please refer to Chapter 3 of the CCP for 

more details.

3.3. Social and Economic 

Context

Please see Chapter 3 of the CCP for more details.

3.4. Natural Resources

3.4.1. Habitats

The physical characteristics of the Kirtland’s 

Warbler WMA are consistent with most of the 

northern half of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. 

Topographically, the land is flat to gently rolling. 

Landforms are glacially derived. In terms of physiography and land classification, the majority of the 

stands (94 percent) are in the Highplains Landtype 

Association with 6 percent in the Presque Isle Landtype Association. Three soil associations dominate 

the tracts namely Grayling – Graycalm - Au Gres 

(35 percent), Rubicon – Grayling - Croswell (34 percent), and Grayling – Rubicon - Au Gres (21 percent). Heavy sands are a major component in all 

three soil associations. 

3.4.1.1. Wetlands

Approximately 2 percent of the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA or 137 ac is characterized by wetland ecosystems and 0.6 percent is classified as lakes. No 

detailed inventories or research have been conducted within these habitat types, however.

3.4.1.2. Uplands

According to the contract work completed by 

Goebel et al. (2007), 41 percent of the stands (2,695 

acres) are between 5-23 years old, while 14 percent 

(959 acres) are less than 5 years old and 45 percent 

(2,298 acres) are greater than 23 years old. It is 

important to note that many of the stands have multiple cohorts; to determine the age of each stand the 

most extensive cohort was considered indicative of 

the overall stand age. 

Seventeen overstory (stems greater than 4 inches 

dbh) tree species have been found at Kirtland’s Warbler WMA. Jack pine, red pine, scarlet oak, trembling aspen, black cherry, black oak, northern red 

oak, and bigtooth aspen are the most common over-
Table 2: Bird Species Strongly Associated with Young (< 5 years old), KW (5-23 years old), and old 

(> 23 years old) Stands of the KWWMA

Young

(< 5 years old)

KW

(5-23 years old)

Old

(> 23 years old)

Indigo Bunting*** Kirtland’s Warbler*** Eastern Wood-Pewee***

Eastern Bluebird*** Nashville Warbler*** Hermit Thrush***

Field Sparrow*** Eastern Towhee*** Ovenbird***

Lincoln's Sparrow*** Brown Thrasher** Rose-breasted Grosbeak***

Black-billed Cuckoo* Alder Flycatcher** Red-breasted Nuthatch***

Red-eyed Vireo***

Black-capped Chickadee**

Chipping Sparrow**

Mourning Dove*

*P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001.

Table 2 provides the results of a statistical procedure that assigns species to each of the three stand a ges based 

on frequency of encounters. It also only shows species whose P-value is <0.05. Some species are also highly associated with these stands, but at greater P-values. 

Environmental Assessment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

60

story species. Less common species include eastern 

white pine, red maple, balsam fir, green ash, black 

ash, white spruce, northern pin oak and fire cherry. 

3.4.2. Wildlife

3.4.2.1. Birds

The loss of landscape structural diversity in jack 

pine ecosystems (from barrens to forests) can influences ecoregional populations of many bird species. 

Whereas jack pine plantations pr ovide food and 

shelter for a certain suite of species, other jack pine 

ecosystems offer habitat for a different suite of 

birds, many of which are of conser vation priority. 

Species that utilize mature jack stands include 

Black-backed Woodpecker, Spruce Grouse, and 

Olive-sided Flycatcher. In young jack pine stands 

and open areas of pine barrens, many openland 

(grassland and shrubland) birds of conservation 

concern breed. Species found in the early successional stages of jack pine ecosystems include (of 

course) K irtland’s Wa rbler, Palm Wa rbler, B lackbilled Cuckoo, Brown Thrasher, Eastern Towhee, 

and Nashville Warbler. American Kestrel, Northern 

Harrier, Upland Sandpiper, and Clay-colored Sparrow can be found in the larger, more open areas.

3.4.2.2. Mammals

Based on state-wide distribution patterns (Kurta 

2001), there are approximately 52 extant mammal 

species possible within the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA 

(Appendix C). However, range expansion of some 

species is likely to occur soo n. For instance, 

although not prevalent within the Lower Peninsula 

of Michigan now, the gray wolf is likely to become 

more common in the future. Species of high public 

interest include river otter, beaver, snowshoe hare, 

and white-tailed deer. 

3.4.2.3. Fish

No fish surveys have been conducted. Only a few 

small water bodies are found on WMA parcels.

3.4.2.4. Reptiles and Amphibians

Based on state-wide distribution patterns (multiple authors), 36 species of herptofauna possibly 

exist within the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA and many 

of these species are Conservation Priority Species 

(Appendix C). Much more inventory work is 

required at the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA and much 

of this work should be done as part of applied 

research.

3.4.2.5. Threatened and Endangered Species

Aside from Kirtland’s Warbler, no other current 

federally-listed species is known to use the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA tracts. The gray wolf, a federally listed endangered species, was delisted in 2007 

but their status is subject to ongoing court actions. 

It is unlikely that the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA 

tracts are used by wolves during any time of the 

year as this species is at best rare in the northern 
Environmental Assessment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

61

Lower Peninsula. The Michigan DNR conducts aerial surveys for the wolves all year long and reports 

the information.

3.5. Visitor Services

Although most statistics regarding the use of 

Kirtland’s Warbler WMA for Visitor Services are 

lacking, the WMA provides opportunities for wildlife-dependent activities such as hunting, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, environmental 

education and environmental interpretation. Please 

see Chapter 3 of the CCP for more detail on visitor 

services at Kirtland’s Warbler WMA.
Environmental Assessment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

62

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4.1. Effects Common to All 

Alternatives

Specific environmental and social impacts of 

implementing each alternative are compared in 

Table 1 within the broad categories of wildlife, habitat and people. However, several potential effects 

will be very similar under each alternative and are 

summarized below:

4.1.1. Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 “Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” was signed by 

President Clinton on February 11, 1994. Its purpose 

was to focus the attention of fed eral agencies on the 

environmental and human health conditions of 

minority and low-income populations with the goal 

of achieving environmental protection for all communities. The Order directed federal agencies to 

develop environmental justice strategies to aid in 

identifying and addressing disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or environmental effects 

of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. The Order is also 

intended to promote nondiscrimination in federal 

programs substantially affecting human health and 

the environment, and to provide minority and lowincome communities access to public information 

and participation in matt ers relating to human 

health or the environment.

None of the management alternatives described 

in this EA would disproportionately place any 

adverse environmental, economic, social, or health 

impacts on minority and low-income populations. 

The percentage of minorities in the northern Lower 

Peninsula of Michigan is lower than i n Michigan 

(and much lower than the United States) as a whole. 

Average incomes and poverty rates within the counties is comparable to other rural counties in the 

state. Public use activities that would be offered 

under each of the alternatives would be available to 

any visitor regardless of race, ethnicity or income 

level.

4.1.2. Climate Change Impacts 

The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an 

order in January 2001 requiring federal agencies, 

under its direction, that have land management 

responsibilities to consider potential climate change 

impacts as part of long range planning endeavo rs. 

The increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) within the 

earth’s atmosphere has been linked to the gradual 

rise in surface temperature commonly referred to 

as global warming. In relation to comprehensive 

conservation planning for national wildlife refuges, 

carbon sequestration constitutes the primary climate-related impact to be considered in planning. 

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.”

Please refer to Chapter 3 of the CCP for more 

detail on potential climate change impacts in Northern Michigan and the Great Lakes Region.

4.1.3. Cultural Resources 

The USFWS is responsible for managing archeological and historic sites found on national wildlife 

refuges. There are no identified cultural resources 

on Kirtland’s Warbler WMA. However, there may 

be cultural resources awaiting discovery. Under 

each alternative evaluated in this EA, WMA management would ensure compliance with relevant 

federal laws and regulations, particularly Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Prior 

to all habitat and facility projects, appropriate 

efforts will be made to identify cultural resources 

within the area of potential impact by contacting the 

Regional Historic Preservation Officer.
Environmental Assessment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

63

4.1.4. Other Common Effects

None of the alternatives would have more than 

negligible, or at most minor effects on soils, topography, noise levels, land use patterns, transportation 

and traffic, waste management, human health and 

safety, or visual resources.

4.2. Cumulative Impacts 

Analysis

“Cumulative environmental impacts” refer to 

effects that result from the incremental impact of 

the proposed action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or 

person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative 

impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a 

period of time. Land parcels under the jurisdiction 

of the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA are relatively small 

and scattered over eight counties. No cumulative 

impacts have been identified for actions suggested 

in this EA.
Environmental Assessment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

64

Chapter 5: List of Preparers

Refuge Staff: 

 Tracy Casselman, Refuge Manager

 Greg Corace, Forester

Regional Office Staff:

 Gary Muehle nhardt, W ildlife Biologist/Ref -

uge Planner, Region 3, USFWS

 Gabriel DeAles sio, Biol ogist-GIS, Region 3, 

USFWS

 John Dobrovolny, Regional Historian, 

Region 3, USFWS (retired)

 Jane Hodgin s, T echnical Writer/Editor, 

Region 3, USFWS
Environmental Assessment

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

65

Chapter 6: Consultation and Coordination with 

Stakeholders

The Refuge and Regional Planning staffs have 

conducted extensive consultation and coordination 

over two years with stakeholders in developing the 

CCP and EA for Kirtland’s Warbler WMA. In the 

course of scoping and other meetings, the Service 

consulted with more than two dozen individuals representing Michigan DNR, conservation organizations, neighboring communities, and other 

stakeholders. See Chapter 2 of the CCP for a more 

detailed description of the process.

Appendix B: Glossary

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

67

Appendix B: Glossary

Appendix B: Glossary

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

69

Appendix B: Glossary

Alternative

A s et of obj ectives and strateg ies 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 comm unities 

and ecosystems in which they occur.

Compatible Use

A wildlife-dependent recreational use, o r any 

other use on a refuge that will not materially 

interfere with or detr act from the fulfillment of 

the mission of the S ervice or the purpos es of the 

refuge.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

A document that describes the desired future 

conditions of the refuge, and s pecifies manage -

ment actions to achieve refuge goals and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Conservation

Active ma nagement to mainta in ex isting condi -

tions, more or less.

Cultural Resources

“Those parts of the physical environment -- natural and built -- that have cultural va lue to some 

kind of soci ocultural group ... [and] those nonmaterial human soc ial institu tions....” Cultural 

resources include historic sites , archeolog ical 

sites and associated artifacts , sacred sites, traditional cultural properties, cultural item s (human 

remains, funerar y obj ects, s acred objects, and 

objects of cultural patrim ony), 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 ecosys tem that includes all 

ecological, social and ec onomic components that 

make up the whole of the system.

Endangered Species

Any spec ies of plant or ani mal defined through 

the Endangered Species Act as being in danger 

of extinction thro ughout all or a significant portion of its range, and published in the F ederal 

Register.

Environmental Assessment

A systematic analysis to determine if proposed 

actions would result in a si gnificant effect on the 

quality of the environment.

Extirpation

The local extinction of a spe cies that is no longer 

found in a loca lity or countr y, but exists else -

where in the world.

Goals

Descriptive s tatements of desired future condi -

tions.

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 m ore 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 manag ement decision. For example, a resource management probl em, concer n, 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

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

70

National Wildlife Refuge System

All lands, waters, and interes ts therein administered by the U.S. F ish and Wildlife Ser vice as 

wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges, wildlife management areas, water fowl 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 i s speci fic, measurable, ac hievable, results oriented, and time-fixed.

Preferred Alternative

The Ser vice's selected alternative identified in 

the environmental assess ment and fully devel -

oped in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Preservation

Passive managem ent that a llows patter ns to 

develop without intervention.

Restoration

Active managem ent to return patter ns or processes to a measured, pre-European condition.

Scoping

A process for deter mining the s cope of issues to 

be addres sed by a comprehensive conser vation 

plan and f or id entifying th e significant issues. 

Involved in the scoping process are federal, state 

and loca l agen cies; priv ate organizations; and 

individuals.

Species

A distin ctive ki nd of pla nt or an imal havi ng di stinguishable chara cteristics, and that can i nterbreed and produce young. A categor y of 

biological classification.

Strategies

A general approach or specific actions to achieve 

objectives.

Threatened Species

Those plant or anim al species likely to become 

endangered species throughout all of or a signifi -

cant portion of their range within the foreseeable 

future. A plant or animal identified and defined in 

accordance with the 1973 End angered Species 

Act and published in the Federal Register.

Trust Resources

Trust resources are those resources for which the 

Service has been given specific respons ibilities 

under federal law. These include migratory birds, 

interjurisdictional fish es (fish speci es t hat may 

cross state lines), federally listed threatened or 

endangered species, some marine mamm als, and 

lands owned by the Service.

Undertaking:

“A proj ect, activity, or pro gram funded in whole 

or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction 

of a F ederal agency, in cluding th ose ca rried out 

by or on behalf of a Federal agency; those carried 

out with F ederal financial a ssistance; those 

requiring a F ederal per mit, li cense 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 categor y in cludes all bi rds that 

inhabit lakes , marshes, streams and other wet -

lands at some point during the year . The group 

includes all waterfowl, such as ducks, geese, and 

swans, and other birds su ch as loons, rails, 

cranes, herons, egrets, ibis, cormorants, pelicans, 

shorebirds and passerines that nest and rely on 

wetland vegetation. 

Watershed

The entire la nd area that collects and drai ns 

water into a stream or stream system.

Wetland

Areas suc h as lakes, marshes, and stream s that 

are inundated by sur face 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

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

71

Appendix C: Species Lists

List of Woody Plant Species Found on Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management 

Area 1

Scientific Name Common Name

Abies balsamea Balsam Fir

Acer rubrum Red Maple

Alnus incana Tag Alder

Amelanchier spp. Serviceberry spp.

Betula spp. Birch spp.

Crataegus spp. Hawthorn spp.

Fraxinus americana White Ash

F. n igra Black Ash

F. pennsylvanica Green Ash

Hamamelis virginiana Witch-hazel

Pinus banksiana Jack Pine

Picea glauca White Spruce

Pinus resinosa Red Pine

P. sylvestris Scots Pine

P. strobus White Pine

Populus grandidentata Bigtooth Aspen

P. t remuloides Trembling Aspen

Prunus pennsylvanica Pin Cherry

P. s erotina Black Cherry

P. virginiana Choke Cherry

Quercus alba White Oak

Q. coccinea Scarlet Oak

Q. ellipsoidalis Northern Pin Oak

Q. rubra Northern Red Oak

Q. velutina Black Oak

Appendix C: Species Lists

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

73

1. Goebel et al. (2007)
Appendix C: Species Lists

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

74

Birds of Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area1

Common Name Scientific Name Nest2 Special Status

LOC1 LOC2 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities

Regional 

Forester 

Sensitive

Michigan 

Special 

Animal 

Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum SH

American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos DT SH

American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis SH TR

American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla DT SH

American Robin Turdus migratorius DT CT

Barred Owl Strix varia DT SH

Black-billed Cuckoo1 Coccyzus erythropthalmus DT SN 

Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus SN

Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata DT GR

Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius CT

Brown Creeper Certhia americana CT DT

Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum SH GR

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater SH GR

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum DT CT

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina CT DT

Clay-colored Sparrow Spizella pallida DT CT

Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula GR

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor CL CT

Common Raven Corvus corax GR

Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas SH

Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis SN

Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus DT SH

Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe BR CL

Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus GR SH

Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens DT

Field Sparrow1 Spizella pusilla GR SH 

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa DT SN

Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus CT
Appendix C: Species Lists

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

75

Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus DT SN

Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus GR TR

House Wren Troglodytes aedon DT SN

Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea SH TR

Kirtland's Warbler Dendroica kirtlandii GR  

Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus DT SH

Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii GR

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura TR GR

Mourning Warbler Oporornis philadelphia GR

Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla CT

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus GR 

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla SN

Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus GR

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta vireo CT

Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus DT SH

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis CT

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus SH DT

Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus DT CL

Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea RD

Slate-colored Junco Junco hyemalis GR BK

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia DT CT

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius GR SH

Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor CT DT

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura GR

Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda SN  

Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus CL SN 

White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis GR

White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis GR

Birds of Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area1

Common Name Scientific Name Nest2 Special Status

LOC1 LOC2 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities

Regional 

Forester 

Sensitive

Michigan 

Special 

Animal 
Appendix C: Species Lists

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

76

Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo DT

Wilson's Snipe Gallinago delicata GR

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius GR SH

Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata DT

1. Birds of Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area recorded during point counts within KWWMA parcels in June 

and July 2006. 

2. The ‘NEST’ columns provide alphabetic code for the primary (LOC1) and secondary (LOC2) nest site locations commonly 

utilized by the species (Ehrlich et al. 1988); the designations are as follows: BK – bank, GR – ground, BR – bridge, RD – 

reeds, CL – cliff, SH – shrub, CT – coniferous tree, SN – snag, DT – deciduous tree, TR – tree

Birds of Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area1

Common Name Scientific Name Nest2 Special Status

LOC1 LOC2 Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities

Regional 

Forester 

Sensitive

Michigan 

Special 

Animal 
Appendix C: Species Lists

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

77

Possible Mammal Species of Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat(s)1 Habitat(s)2 Special Status

Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities

Regional 

Forester 

Sensitive

Michigan 

Special 

Animal 

Opossum Didelphis 

virginiana

Deciduous woods near stream or lake,

semi open country

brushy fenelines, drainage ditches, and 

swamp borders

MDF, W DF, 

SUP

Northern Shorttailed ShrewBlarina 

brevicauda

Moist environments with extensive 

herbaceous cover or a thick layer of 

litter

WDF, M DF, 

WMF, WCF, 

SWE

Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus 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, W DF, 

PAS, GRA, 

HAY, SWE

Water Shrew Sorex palustris 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



Pygmy Shrew Sorex hoyi 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, D CF, 

GRA, SUP, 

SWE

Star-nosed Mole Condylura 

cristata

Wet saturated soils and frequents the 

borders of swamps, lakes, streams, or 

isolated areas of poor drainage.

WDF, WMF, 

WCF, SWE, 

OWE

Eastern Mole Scalopus 

aquaticus

Damp soils of forests, fields, pastures 

and lawns

DCF, DDF, 

DMF, GRA, 

PAS, RES

Little Brown Bat Myotis lucifugus Buildings RES

Northern Bat Myotis 

septentrionalis

Silver maples, hollow green ash, 

underneath loose bark of dead trees

DDF 

Hoary Bat Lasiurus 

cinereus

Any tree with dense shade, seclusion, 

and clear space below the roost

DDF, MDF, 

DMF, MMF, 

DCF, MCF

Red Bat Lasiurus borealis Leafy trees (elms, maples) or in conifers DDF, MDF, 

DMF, D CF, 

MCF

Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus Buildings RES

Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris 

noctivagans

Fond of willows, maple or ash DDF, MDF
Appendix C: Species Lists

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

78

Snowshoe Hare Lepus 

americanus

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 Rolling farmland interspersed with 

grassy pastures, small woodlots, and 

brushy fencelines

OLD, GRA, 

PAS, HAY

Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus 

floridanus

Herbaceous vegetation abounds and 

potential shelter exists from brush piles, 

shrubby thickets, or weedy fencerows.

SUP, OLD, 

GRA, PAS, 

HAY

Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger Deciduous trees in areas that lack a 

well-developed understory. Frequents 

woodlots, forest-field edges

DDF, MDF, 

OLD

Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus 

hudsonicus

Extensive stands of evergreen trees or 

mixed Coniferous/deciduous woodland

DCF, M CF, 

DMF, MMF

Thirteen-lined 

Ground Squirrel

Spermophilus 

tridecemlineatus

Open areas with short grass GRA

Eastern Chipmunk Tamis striatus Open deciduous forests where stumps, 

logs, rocky outcrops Ultimate habitat 

beech maple forest

DDF, MDF

Northern Flying 

Squirrel

Glaucomys 

sabrinus

Mixed forests with mature deciduous 

and coniferous trees. Also frequents 

pure stands of either type.

DMF, MMF

Southern Flying 

Squirrel

Glaucomys volans Open deciduous woodlots with few 

shrubby thickets scattered among 

mature trees.

DDF, MDF

Beaver Castor canadensis Slow-moving streams or lakes bordered 

by young forests containing aspen, 

willow, or alder.

SHO

House Mouse Mus musculus Buildings, cultivated fields, fencerows, 

wooded areas (around buildings)

RES, HAY

Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus Buildings, cultivated fields. RES, HAY

Woodland Deer 

Mouse

Peromyscus 

maniculatus 

gracilis

Forested habitats, shrubby areas, 

regenerating clear-cuts, and recent 

burns.

SUP, DCF, 

MCF, D DF, 

MDF, D MF, 

MMF

Woodland Vole Microtus 

pinetorum

Forests of oak, maple, and beech are 

preferred, but present in all forest types 

and orchards

DCF, M CF, 

DDF, MDF, 

DMF, MMF



Possible Mammal Species of Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat(s)1 Habitat(s)2 Special Status

Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities

Regional 

Forester 

Sensitive

Michigan 

Special 

Animal 
Appendix C: Species Lists

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

79

Red-backed Vole Clethrionomys 

gapperi

Coniferous forests are preferred, 

deciduous or mixed coniferous/

deciduous woods acceptable with 

standing water nearby.

MDF,MMF, 

MCF, SWE, 

SHO

White-footed Mouse Peromyscus 

leucopus

Deciduous woodlands, where 

herbaceous cover is moderate and rocks 

and logs are abundant.

DDF, MDF

Meadow Vole Microtus 

pennsylvanicus

Moist, grassy fields and also frequents 

marshes and bog thick with greases, 

sedges and rushes.

SWE, OLD, 

OWE

Muskrat Ondatra 

zibethicus

Slow-moving streams, lakes, ponds, and 

especially marshes.

OWA, OWE

Southern Bog 

Lemming

Synaptomys 

cooperi

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, W DF, 

MMF, WMF, 

MC, WCF, 

ORA, SUP, 

SWE

Woodland Jumping 

Mouse

Napaeozapus 

insignis

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

Meadow Jumping 

Mouse

Zapus hudsonius 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

Deciduous and coniferous woodlands of 

stands containing pine and hemlock.

DDF, MDF, 

DMF, MMF, 

DCF, MCF

Coyote Canis latrans Prairies, brushy area, wooded edges DDF, MDF, 

DMF, MMF, 

DCF, M CF, 

PAS, GRA, 

HAY

Gray Fox Urocyon 

cinereoargenteus

In wooded swamps and in bottomland 

forests where woodlands and farmlands 

are mixed

DDF, MDF, 

DMF, MMF, 

DCF, WCF

Red Fox Vulpes vulpes Open country with reliable cover nearby, 

frequents forest-field edges, brushy 

fencelines and wooded borders of 

streams or lakes.

DDF, OLD, 

PAS, HAY

Possible Mammal Species of Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat(s)1 Habitat(s)2 Special Status

Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities

Regional 

Forester 

Sensitive

Michigan 

Special 

Animal 
Appendix C: Species Lists

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

80

Black Bear Ursus 

americanus

Dense coniferous or deciduous woods 

having a thick understory.

DDF, MDF, 

DMF, MMF, 

DCF, MCF



Raccoon Procyon lotor 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 Streams, ponds, lakes with at least some 

brushy or rocky cover.

OWA, SWA

Short-tailed Weasel Mustela erminea Open forests, riparian woodlands, and 

shrubby fencerows.

Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata Forest-field edges, brushy fencelines, 

and wooded areas with shrubby cover

DDF, MDF, 

OLD, PAS, 

SHO

Least Weasel Mustela nivalis Open forest, riparian edges, pastures, 

old fields and occasionally mature 

forests

OLD, DDF, 

DMF, D CF, 

PAS

Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis Mix of forests, fields, and wooded 

ravines.

HAY, PAS, 

DDF, MDF, 

DMF, MMF, 

DCF, DMF

River Otter Lutra canadensis Clean, moderately deep streams, ponds, 

lakes.

OWA 

Badger Taxidae taxus Grasslands, open fields, and pastures. GRA, PAS, 

HAY



Marten Martes 

americana

Closed coniferous woodlands underlain 

by a lush growth of shrubs and forbs and 

appears less in mixed stands.

DCF, MCF 

Bobcat Lynx rufus 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

Open forest environments interspersed 

with meadows, woodland clearings or 

farmland.

Elk Cervus elaphus Open forest that includes meadows and 

woodland clearings 

1. Habitat information obtained from: Kurta (2001). 

2. 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

Possible Mammal Species of Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat(s)1 Habitat(s)2 Special Status

Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities

Regional 

Forester 

Sensitive

Michigan 

Special 

Animal 
Appendix C: Species Lists

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

81

Possible Herptofaunal Species of Kirtland’s Warbler WMA Based on Distribution 

Patterns in Michigan

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat(s)1 Special Status

Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities

Regional 

Forester 

Sensitive

Michigan 

Special 

Animal 

Northern Water Snake Nerodia sipedon 

sipedon

Ephemeral wetlands, forests, 

agricultural areas

Northern Red-bellied 

Snake

Storeria 

occipitomaculata 

occipitomaculata

Permanent wetlands, rivers and 

streams, forests, grasslands and 

savannas, agricultural areas, 

urban areas

Butler's Garter Snake Thamnophis butleri Open grasslands and prairies

Eastern Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis 

sirtalis

Ephemeral wetlands, 

permanent wetlands, rivers and 

streams, forests, grasslands and 

savannas, caves and springs, 

agricultural areas, urban areas

Northern Ribbon Snake Thamnophis sauritus Riparian areas, streams, ponds, 

bogs and swamps

Northern Brown Snake Storeria dekayi Bogs, swamps, marshes, moist 

woodlands and hillsides

Eastern Hognose Snake Heterodon platyrhinos Sandy areas

Northern Ringneck 

Snake

Diadophis punctatus 

edwardsi

Rivers and streams, forests, 

grasslands and savannas

Eastern Smooth Green 

Snake

Opheodrys vernalis Forests, grasslands and 

savannas

Eastern Milk Snake Lampropeltis 

triangulum

Fields, riverbottoms, rocky 

hillsides, woodlands

Eastern Massasauga Sistrurus catenatus Wet prairies, bogs, swamps   

Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina Ephemeral wetlands, 

permanent wetlands, rivers and 

streams, grasslands and 

savannas, agricultural areas

Wood Turtle Clemmys insculpta Rivers and streams, forests, 

agricultural areas

 

Spotted Turtle Clemmys guttata Shallow water bodies, marshy 

meadows, bogs, and swamps

 

Blanding’s Turtle Emydoidea blandingii Ephemeral wetlands, 

permanent wetlands, rivers and 

streams, grasslands and 

savannas, agricultural areas

 
Appendix C: Species Lists

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

82

Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta Ephemeral wetlands, 

permanent wetlands, rivers and 

streams, grasslands and 

savannas, agricultural areas

Eastern Spiny Softshell Trionyx spiniferus Rivers and lakes with sand or 

mud bars

Chorus Frog Pseudacris triseriata Permanent wetlands, grasslands 

and savannas



Northern Spring Peeper Pseudacris crucifer 

crucifer

Permanent wetlands, forests, 

grasslands and savannas

Eastern Gray Treefrog Hyla versicolor Ephemeral wetlands, 

permanent wetlands, forests

Cope’s Gray Treefrog Hyla chrysoscelis Ephemeral wetlands, 

permanent wetlands, forests

Blanchard's Cricket Frog Acris crepitans Riparian grasslands, swamps, 

boggy meadows

 

Green Frog Rana clamitans 

melanota

Ephemeral wetlands, 

permanent wetlands, forests, 

grasslands and savannas

Bull Frog Rana catesbeiana Lakes, ponds, bogs, and slow 

moving streams

Northern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens Ephemeral wetlands, 

permanent wetlands, forests, 

grasslands and savannas

Pickerel Frog Rana palustris Riparian grasslands, bogs, and 

rocky ravines

Wood Frog Rana sylvatica Permanent wetlands, forests

Eastern American Toad Bufo americanus 

americanus

Ephemeral wetlands, 

permanent wetlands, rivers and 

streams, forests, grasslands and 

savannas, caves and springs, 

agricultural areas, urban areas

Fowler's Toad Bufo woodhousei Sandy areas, and shorelines

Mudpuppy Necturus maculosus 

maculosus

Ephemeral wetlands, 

agricultural areas

Possible Herptofaunal Species of Kirtland’s Warbler WMA Based on Distribution 

Patterns in Michigan

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat(s)1 Special Status

Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities

Regional 

Forester 

Sensitive

Michigan 

Special 

Animal 
Appendix C: Species Lists

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

83

Blue Spotted Salamander Ambystoma laterale Ephemeral wetlands, 

permanent wetlands, forests, 

grasslands and savannas

Spotted Salamander Ambystoma maculatum Ephemeral wetlands, 

permanent wetlands, forests

Eastern Tiger 

Salamander

Ambystoma tigrinum 

tigrinum

Ephemeral wetlands, 

permanent wetlands, forests, 

grasslands and savannas, 

agricultural areas

Eastern Newt Notophthalmus 

viridescens

Ephemeral wetlands, 

permanent wetlands, forests

Red-backed Salamander Plethodon cinereus Forests

Four-toed Salamander Hemidactylium 

scutatum

Ephemeral wetlands, 

permanent wetlands, forests



1. Habitat information obtained from: Conant (1975). 

Possible Herptofaunal Species of Kirtland’s Warbler WMA Based on Distribution 

Patterns in Michigan

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat(s)1 Special Status

Region 3 

Conservation 

Priorities

Regional 

Forester 

Sensitive

Michigan 

Special 

Animal 

Appendix D: Compliance Requirements

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

85

Appendix D: Compliance Requirements

Appendix D: Compliance Requirements

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

87

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 rec -

ognize 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 D: Compliance Requirements

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

88

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 D: Compliance Requirements

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

89

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 prac -

tices.

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 D: Compliance Requirements

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

90

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 Ser vice 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 D: Compliance Requirements

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

91

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 E: Appropriate Use Determinations

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

93

Appendix E: Appropriate Use Determinations

Appendix E: Appropriate Use Determinations

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

95

Appropriate Refuge Uses 

The Service’s Appropriate Use policy describes 

the initial decision process a refuge manager follows 

when first considering whether or not to allow a proposed use on a refuge. The refuge manager must 

first find a use to be appropriate before undertaking 

a compatibility review of the use and outlining the 

stipulations of the use. 

This policy clarifies and expands on the compati -

bility policy (603 FW 2.10D(1)), which describes 

when refuge managers should deny a proposed use 

without determining compatibility. If we find a proposed use is not appropriate, we will not allow the 

use and will not prepare a compatibility deter mination. By screening out proposed uses not appropriate to the refuge, the refuge manager avoids 

unnecessary compatibility reviews. By following the 

process for finding the appropriateness of a use, we 

strengthen and fulfill the Refuge System mission. 

Although a refuge use may be both appropriate and 

compatible, the refuge manager retains the authority to not allow the use or modify the use.

Background for this policy as it applies to Kirtland’s Warbler WMA is found in the following statutory authorities:

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 

U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). This law provides the authority for establishing policies and regulations governing refuge uses, including the authority to prohibit 

certain harmful activities. The Administration Act 

does not authorize any particular use, but rather 

authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to allow 

uses only when they are compatible. The Improve -

ment Act provides the Refuge System mission and 

includes specific directives and a clear hierarchy of 

public uses on the Refuge System.

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, (16 U.S.C. 460k). 

This law authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 

allow public recreation in areas of the Refuge System when the use is an “appropriate incidental or 

secondary use.” 

This policy does not apply to:

 Situations where res erved rights or legal 

mandates provide we must allow certain 

uses.

Refuge Management Activities. Refuge management activities conducted by the Refuge System or 

a Refuge System-authorized agent are designed to 

conserve fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats. 

These activities are used to fulfill a refuge purpose(s) or the Refuge System mission, and are 

based on sound professional judgment. 

Uses that have been administratively determined 

to be appropriate are: 

 Six wildlife-dependent recreational uses. As 

defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement 

Act), the six wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation 

and photography, and environmental education and interpretation) are determined to be 

appropriate. However, the refuge manager 

must still determine if these uses are compatible. 

 Take of fish and wildlife under State regulations. States have regulations concerning 

take of wildlife that includes hunting, fishing, 

and trapping. We consider take of wildlife 

under such regulations appropriate. However, the refuge manager must determine if 

the activity is compatible before allowing it 

on a refuge. 

Refuge uses must meet at least one of the following four conditions to be deemed appropriate:
Appendix E: Appropriate Use Determinations

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

96

 It is a wildlife-dependent recreational us e of 

a refuge as identified in the Improvement 

Act.

 It cont ributes to fulfilling the refuge pur -

pose(s), the Refuge System mission, or goals 

or objectives described in a refuge management plan approved after the Improvement 

Act was signed into law. 

 The use involves the take of fis h and wildlife 

under State regulations.

 The refuge manag er has evaluated the use 

following the guidelines in this policy and 

found that it is appropriate. The criteria used 

by the manager to evaluate appropriateness 

can be found on each of the appropriate use 

forms included in this appendix. Also 

included under this condition are ‘specialized 

uses,’ or uses that require specific authorization from the Refuge System, often in the 

form of a special use permit, letter of authorization, or other permit document. These 

uses do not include uses already granted by a 

prior existing right. We make appropriateness findings for specialized uses on a caseby-case basis. 
Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name:

Use: Research

Kirtland's rWarbler \Mildlife Management Area

This exhibit is not required for wildlifedependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by the State, or uses

aheady described in a refuge CCP or stepdown management plan approved after October 9,1997.

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (ho" to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it fi¡rther as we cannot

control the use. Uses that æe illegal, inconsistent with eústing polic¡ or unsafe (ho" to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be

found appropriate. Ifthe answ€r is 'bo" to my ofthe other questions above, we will generalþ not allow the use.

If indícate{ the refrrge manager has consulæd with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X* No 

When the - refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sotmd professional judgmen! the refuge manager must

justify the use in writing on an dached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor's conclurence.

Based on an overall assessm€nt of these factory my $mmary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not Appropriate Appropriate_X_

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal,

and local)?

X

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and

Service policies? X

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan

or other document?

x

(Ð Has an earlier documented anaþis not denied the use or is this the first time the

use has been proposed?

X

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and stafl x

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

Does the use contribute to the public's understanding and appreciation ofthe

refuge's nafural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refrrge's

natural or cultural resources?

(Ð

X

Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent

recreational us€s or reducingthe potential to provide quahty (see section 1.6D.

for description), compatible, wildlifedependent recreation into the future?

ú)

X

Refuge Manager:

If found to be Not the refuge supervisor does not need to sþ concurence if the use is a new use.

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate oußide the CCP process, the refirge supervisor must sign concurrence.

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurence.

Refuge Supervisoc

rt/ I

Arl;V oate: 7/ t/ À,ûtt?

A compatibility determination is requircd before

nate. qltifÚt

Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

99

Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Hunting

Refuge Name: Kirtland's'Warbler Wildlife Management Area (WMA)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Endangered Species Act 16 U.S.C 1531-1543

Refuge Purpose(s): Kirtland's Warbler Wildlife Management Area was established in 1980...

"... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species .... or (B)

plants ..." 16 U.S.C. $ 1534

National \ilildlife Refuge System Mission: To administer a national network of lands and waters for the

conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife and plant resources and

their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

ll'hat is the use? The use is the hunting of game, an activity conducted by the general public under

authority of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. Hunting is currently allowed for all

game species within the State of Michigan, in accordance with State regulations. However, we estimated

that fewer than 200 people hunt on the Kirtland's Warbler WMA. Most hunting is incidental to hunting

that occurs on adjacent State and privately owned land. Commonly hunted species include: Ruffed

Grouse, American Woodcock, gray squirrel, snowshoe hare, and white-tailed deer.

Where is lhe use conducted? The Kirtland's Warbler WMA consists of 125 parcels of land located in the

counties of Clare, Crawford, Kalkaska, Montmorency, Presque Isle, Ogemaw, Oscoda, and Roscommon,

totaling 6,684 acres.

Wen is the use conducted? Hunting season traditionally runs from mid-September through the end of

December for species typically hunted on Kirtland's Warbler WMA. The regular firearm season for

white-tailed deer, which is the most popular hunting season in the State, runs from November 15 - 30.

How is the use conducted? Hunting is conducted under regulations promulgated by the State of Michigan.

LYhy ß the use being proposed? Hunting is identified as a priority public use in the National Wildlife

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and has haditionally occurred on lands within the Kirtland's

WMA without adverse impacts to the purpose for which the Area was established. The hunt program is

administered in accordance with sound wildlife management principles and the utmost concern for public

safety.

Availability of Resources: Approximately $5,000 is required annually to administer the hunting program

on the Kirtland's WMA. This cost is for Law Enforcement patrol to insure compliance with hunting

regulations. Based on a review of the current Refuge budget, there is enough funding to ensure

administration of this program is compatible with the purpose for which Kirtland's Warbler WMA was

established.
Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Hunting has not caused any adverse impacts to the WMA, its habitats,

visitors or wildlife. Conc€rns over impacts to Kirtland's Warblers, other non-target wildlife and visitors

are minimized by the seasonalþ ofthe hunts. Hunting occurs afterthe nesting season and afterKirtland's

Wa¡blers and many other non-target wildlife have migraúed south. It is also the time when visitation is at

its lowest. Hunters are required to follow all Michigan State hunting regulations and law enforcement

patrols are conducted regularly to ensure compliance with regulations. The hunting progtrm follows all

applicable laws, regulations and policies; including Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations, National

Wildlife Refuge System lvfanual, National Wildlife Reñrge System goals and objectives. This activity is

also compliant with the purpose of the Refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge System Mission.

Conducting this program does not altsr the Sen¡ice's ability to meet habitat goals, provides for public

safety and supports several primary objectives ofthe WMA.

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility deterrrinalion was part ofthe Draft Kirtland's Warbler

V/ildlife Managerrent Area Comprehe, sive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment which

was announced in the Federal Register and available for public comment for 30 days.

I)etermination:

_ Use is not compatible.

X Use is compatible with the following stipulations.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: To ensure compatibility with Næional Wildlife

Refuge System and Kirtland's Warbler WMA goals and objectives the activþ can only occur underthe

following stipulations :

1. Staæ and/or Tribal hunting requireme,nts apply to all hunting on the Kirtland's Warbler WMA.

2. Annually review all hunting activities and operations to ensure compliance wift all applicable

laws, regulations and policies.

Justiñcation: This use has been determined compatible provided the above stþlations are implernented.

This use is being perrritûed as it is a pnority public use and will not diminish the primary purposes of the

WMA. This use will meet the mission ofthe National Wildlife Refuge Syste'm by providing re,newable

resources for the benefit ofthe American public while conserving fish, wildlife and plant resor¡rc€s on

these lands.

Signatune:

/1"¿ä

Concurrence: tlud

Mandatory 10 or 15 year Re'evaluati on l)atez 2024
C OMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation, Wildlife Observation, and Photography (including

means of access)

Refuge Name: Kirtland's Warbler Wildlife Management Area

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Endangered Species Act 16 U.S.C 1531-1543

Refuge Purpose(s): Kirtland's Warbler Wildlife Management Area was established in 1980...

"... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species .... or (B)

plants ..." 16 U.S.C. $ 1534

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: To administer a national network of lands and waters for the

conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife and plant resources and

their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

What is the use? Provide opportunities for the public to observe and photograph wildlife and engage in

environmental interpretation and education. Environmental education consists of public outreach and

onsite activities conducted by refuge staff, volunteers, teachers, and university professors. Interpretation

occurs in less formal activities with refuge staff and volunteers or through exhibits, signs, and brochures.

Under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, environmental education,

interpretation, wildlife observation and photography are priority public uses.

lVhere is the use conducted? These activities are most likely to take place in or near areas where

Kirtland's Warblers are nesting; specifically jack-pine habitat 5-20 years of age. Access would be along

counfy roads by motorized vehicle, bicycle and on foot.

Wen is the use conducted? Visitation to the Kirtland's Warbler WMA is highest during the nesting

season (May 15 - July 15).

How is the use conducted? The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with assistance from the Michigan

Audubon Society and the U.S. Forest Service, provide daily tours to observe and photograph Kirtland's

Warblers. These tours typically begin during the week of May 15 and end the first week in July. The

Michigan Department of Natural Resources also provides tours during the Kirtland's Warbler Festival

which is hosted annually by the Kirtland Community College. All participants are given an interpretive

brochure and the staff, who serve as guides, provide environmental education. Interpretive signs are also

used to clarify why nesting areas are closed and explain management of the jack-pine ecosystem for

Kirtland's Warblers. Nearly 1,500 people participate in the tours annually. These tours may or may not

visit Kirtland's Warbler WMA lands, depending upon where birds can be easily seen with minimal

disturbance.

All wildlife observation and photography activities will be conducted with the Kirtland's'Warbler WMA's

goals, objectives and management plans as the guiding principles. Activities done under these restrictions

allow the Service to accomplish its management and provide for the safety of visitors. Entry on all or
portions of individual areas may be temporarily suspended due to unusual or critical conditions affecting

land, water, vegetation, wildlife populations, or public safety.

Why is tlte use being proposed? Environmental education, interpretation, wildlife observation and

photography are priority public uses on National Wildlife Refuge System lands as identified in the

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Allowing access to the Refuge for these

activities is consistent with soals of the Kirtland's Warbler WMA and the National Wildlife Refuee

System.

Availability of Resources: All of the cost associated with providing environmental education and

interpretation, wildlife observation and photography are borne by other government agencies and nongovemment organizations.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Environmental education and interpretation and/or wildlife observation

and photography tours are designed to minimize disturbance to wildlife. Kirtland's Warblers quickly

become accustom to vehicles along designated routes and when people get out ofvehicles to set up

cameras, the impact is neglible and temporary. People who do attempt to locate birds on their own are

restricted to county roads. Overall, the disturbance is limited to a small portion of the entire Kirtland's

Warbler WMA.

Environmental education and interpretation, wildlife observation and photography are priority public uses

listed in.the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. By facilitating these activities on the

Kirtland's Warbler WMA, we will increase visitors'knowledge and appreciation of endangered species,

which will foster public stewardship of fish and wildlife and their habitats. Increased public stewardship

will lead to support for Service activities and further the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Kirtland's Warbler

Wildlife Management Area Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, which

was announced in the Federal Register and available for public comment for 30 days.

Determination:

_ Use is not compatible.

X Use is compatible with the following stipulations.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife

Refuge System and Kirtland's Warbler WMA goals and objectives, environmental education,

interpretation, wildlife observation and photography can only occur under the following stipulation:

1. Visitors must adhere to seasonal closures issued by the Director of the Michigan Department of

Natural Resources

Justification: This use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented.

It promotes public stewardship of natural resources and helps the Service meet its goals and objectives. It

does not materially interfere with or detract from the Service's ability to meet the mission of the National

Wildlife Refuge System.
The activities follow all applicable laws, regulations and polioies; including Migratory Bird Conservation

Act, Title 50 Code of Feder¿l Regulations, National Wildlife Refuge Sysüem Manual, National Wildlife

Refuge System goals and objectives. These activities are compliant with the purpose ofthe Kirtland's

Warbler WMA and ttre National Wildlife Refirge System Mission. Operating this activþ does not alter

the Senice's abilþ to meet habitat goals and it helps support several of the primary objectives of the

National Wildlife \efuge System.

Signatune:

A cl¡n'l

C

Concurrence:

Mandatory 10 or 15 year Re-evaluation Datez2024
COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Research

Refuge Name: Kirtland's Warbler Wildlife Management Area (WMA)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Endangered Species Act 16 U.S.C 1531-1543

Refuge Purpose(s): Kirtland's Warbler Wildlife Management Area was established in 1980...

"... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species .... or (B)

plants ..." 16 U.S.C. $ 1534

NatÍonal Wildlife System Mission: To administer a national network of lands and waters for the

conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife and plant resources and

their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

What is the use? The use is research conducted by academic institutions, govemment agencies and private

conservation organizations. Research projects will focus on better understanding jack-pine ecosystems

and Kirtland's Warbler ecology. It will provide information that increases life history information on

species of concem and improves adaptive management decisions.

tl/here is the use conducted? Research activities will occur throughout the Kirtland's Warbler WMA,

which consists of 6,684 acres and adjacent state land.

When is the use conducted? Research may occur at all times of the year day or night. However, most

research activity occurs during the summer months (May, June, and July) and during daylight hours.

How is the use conducted? Prior to any research being conducted on the Kirtland's Warbler WMA, a

research proposal must be approved by the Kirtland's Warbler Recovery Team. Strict guidelines will be

placed on research activities and these guidelines will be incorporated into a Special Use Permit that will

be issued by the Refuge Manager. Research may be carried out by professors, students, contractors, and

agency staff and volunteers.

All research activities will be conducted in accordance with the Kirtland's Warbler Recovery Plan, the

Endangered Species Act and the Kirtland's Warbler WMA primary goals, objectives, and habitat

management requirements as the guiding principles. Every effort will be made to minimize the impacts of

research activities on wildlife and their habitats and avoid conflicts with public use and manasemenr

activities.

Wy is the use being proposed? Research and monitoring information are critical to making sound

biological decisions in the restoration and management of ecosystems/landscapes for fish and wildlife

communities occurring on national wildlife refuges. It is needed to measure the successes and failures of

management efforts. This is an important use with long-term benefits that ensures we have the best

information possible upon which to base management decisions.
Availability of Resources: Approximately $5,000 is required annually to administer the research

program at the Kirtland's Warbler WMA. Most of the research and monitoring is funded by grants, other

government agencies, universities, or conducted by students and volunteers. U.S. Fish and Wildlife staff

involvement includes reviewing research proposals, supervising or monitoring research activities,

reviewing reports, providing some equipment and vehicles, and occasionally participating in field work.

Based on a review of the current Refuge budget, there is enough funding to ensure administration of this

program is compatible with the purpose for which the Kirtland's Warbler WMA was established.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Disturbance to wildlife and vegetation by researchers could occur

through vegetation sampling, capture and handling of wildlife, observation activities, banding, and

accessing the study area.It is possible that direct or indirect mortality could result as a byproduct of

research activities. However, the overall impact of allowing well designed and properly reviewed research

to be conducted by non-Service personnel is likely to have very little impact on wildlife populations.

Research conducted in accordance with Special Use Permits will likely have no adverse impacts. Any

negative impacts that occur will likely be outweighed by the knowledge gained and subsequent

improvement in management of the jack pine ecosystem.

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Kirtland's Warbler

Wildlife Management Area Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, which

rrvas announced in the Federal Register and available for public comment for 30 days.

Determination:

_ Use is not compatible.

X Use is compatible with the following stþulations.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife

Refuge System and Kirtland's Warbler \ryMA goals and objectives the activity can only occur under the

following stþulations :

1. Each research proposal is evaluated to insure the least invasive techniques are used, and

preference is given to projects that focus on better understanding ofjack-pine ecosystems, and

Kirtland' s Warbler ecology.

2. Any research that involves the handling of Kirtland's Warblers must be approved by the

Kirtland's Warbler Recovery Team.

3. The Kirtland's Warbler Recovery Team will be kept apprised on all research activities.

4. Conditions of Special Use Permits must be followed.

Research activities are evaluated annually to ensure that their collective impacts do not compromise the

goals or objectives of Kirtland's Warbler WMA.

Justification: This use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented.

Research and monitoring information is critical to making sound biological decisions in the restoration

and management of ecosystems/landscapes for fish and wildlife communities occurring on lands within
the National Wildlife Refuges system. It is needed to measure the successes and failures of manage'lnent

efforts. This is an important use with long-term be,nefits that ensures we have the best infonnation

possible upon which to base management decisions.

Sþnatune:

ßc,1,;V

Concurrence:

rtffiegional Chief

IVlandatory t0 or 15 yearRe-evaluation Date: 2019
Appendix G: Bibliography and References Cited

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

109

Appendix G: Bibliography and References Cited

Appendix G: Bibliography and References Cited

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

111

Bibliography and References Cited

Albert, D.A. 1995. Regional Landscape Ecosystems 

of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin: A 

working Map and Classification. USDA Forest 

Service North Central Forest Experiment 

Station General Technical Report NC-178. 

American Ornithologists’ Union Checklist of North 

American Birds. 2006. American Ornithologists’ Union, McLean, VA. http://www.aou.org/

checklist/index.php3.

Brewer, R., McPeek, G. A. and Adams Jr., R. J., eds. 

1991. The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Michigan. Michigan State University Press, East 

Lansing, Michigan. 

Conant, R. 1975. A Field Guide to Reptiles and 

Amphibians of Eastern and Central North 

America. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston.

Denton, S.R. 1985. Ecological climatic regions and 

tree distributions in Michigan. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 

321 pp.

Dorr, J. and D.F. Eschman, 1970. Geology of Michigan. Univeristy of Michigan Press. 476 p.

Dufrêne, M., and Legendre, P. 1997. Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a 

flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecological 

Monographs. 67: 345-366.

Ehrlich, P.R., Dobkin, D.S. and Wheye, D. 1988. The 

Birder’s Handbook: A Field Guide to the Natural History of North American Birds. Simon 

and Schuster Incorporated, New York, New 

York.

Frehlich, L. 2002. Forest dynamics and disturbance 

regimes. Cambridge University Press.

Goebel, P. C., McCormick, D. L. and Corace, R. G., 

III. 2007. Ecological assessment of the USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s Kirtland’s Warbler 

Wildlife Management Area. The School of 

Environment and Natural Resources, Ohio 

Agricultural Research and Development Center, The Ohio State University.

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.

Holling, C.S. and G.K. Meffe. 1996. Command and 

control and the pathology of natural resource 

management. Conservation Biology 10:328-

337.

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.

Jenness Random Point Generator v. 1.3. 2005. Jenness Enterprises, Flagstaff, AZ. http://

www.jennessent.com/arcview/

random_points.htm.

Kashian, D. M, B. V. Barnes, and W. S. Walker. 2003. 

Landscape ecosystems of northern lower 

Michigan and the occurrence and management of the Kirtland’s Warbler. Forest Science 

49:140-159.

Kirtland’s Warbler Recovery Plan. 1985. Kirtland’s 

Warbler Recovery Team, Cadillac, Michigan.

Kurta, A. 2001. Mammals of the Great Lakes 

Region. University of Michigan Press, Ann 

Arbor.

Lambeck, R.J. 1997. Focal species: a multi-species 

umbrella for nature conservation. Conservation Biology 11:849-856.

Matthews, S., R. O’Connor, L.R. Iverson, and A.M. 

Prasad. 2004. Atlas of climate change effects 

in 150 bird species of the Eastern United 

States. GTR-NE-318. USDA Forest Service, 
Appendix G: Bibliography and References Cited

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

112

Northeastern Research Station. Newtown 

Square, PA. 340pp.

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/7514

McCune, B., and Mefford, M.J. 1995. PC-ORD, multivariate analysis of ecological data, version 

3.0. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, 

Oregon.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2005. 

Michigan Wildlife Action Plan. Lansing, Michigan.

Michigan Geographic Data Library. 2006. Michigan 

Department of Information Technology, Lansing, MI. http://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/mgdl/.

Mielke, P.W. 1984. Meteorological applications of 

permutation techniques based on distance 

functions. Pages 813-830, In P.R. Krishnaiah 

and P.K. Sen (eds.), Handbook of Statistics, 

Vol. 4. Elsevier Science Publishers.

Muladore, J., S. Pendergrass and R. Schillo. 2006. 

Conservation planning for the Grayling subdistrict of Michigan. M.S. project, School of 

Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

National Audubon So cie t y. 2009. (http://

www.audubon.org/bird/iba/michigan)

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, Conneticut.

Partners In Flight Species Assessment Database. 

2006. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Fort 

Collins, CO. http://www.r mbo.org/pif/

pifdb.html.

Prasad, A.M., L.R. Iverson, S. Matthews, M. Peters. 

2007-/ongoing. A Climate Change Atlas for 

134 Forest Tree Species of the Eastern United 

States [database].

http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/atlas/tree 

Northern Research Station, Forest Service, 

Delaware, Ohio

Price, J. 2000. Modeling the potential impacts of climate change on the summer distributions of 

Michigan’s nongame birds. Michigan Birds 

and Natural History 7: 3-11.

Probst, J. R. 1988. Kirtland’s Warbler breeding biology and habitat management. In: Integrating 

Forest Management for Wildlife and Fish. 

USDA Forest Ser vice General Technical 

Report, NC-122.

Probst, J. R. and Weinrich, J. 1993. Relating Kirtland’s Warbler population to changing landscape composition and structure. Landscape 

Ecol. 8:257–271.

Probst, J.R., Donner, D.M., Bocettii, C.I., and 

Sjogren, S. 2003. Population increase in Kirtland’s warbler and summer range expansion 

to Wisconsin and Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. 

Oryx. 37:365-373.

Ralph, J.C., Geupel, G.R., Pyle, P., Martin, T.E. and 

DeSante, D.F. 1993. Handbook of Field Methods for Monitoring Landbirds. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PSW-GTR-144. Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, Forest Ser vice, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Albany, California.

Root, T. L. and Schneider, S. H. 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.

Seymour, R.S. and M.L. Hunter, Jr. 1999. Principles of Ecological Forestry. Ch. 2 (p. 22-61) 

In: Mana ging Biodiversity in Forest 

Ecosystems. M.L. Hunter, Jr., editor. Cambridge Univ. Press. 698 p.

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.

ter Braak, C. J .F. and Šmilauer, P. 1997. Canoco for 

Windows version 4.02. Centre for Biometry. 

Wageningen, Netherlands.
Appendix G: Bibliography and References Cited

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

113

The Nature Conservancy. 2000. Toward a New Conservation Vision for the Great Lakes Region: 

A Second Iteration. The Nature Conservancy. 

Chicago, Illinois. 44 pages.

United States Census Bureau, 2005. 

http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.php

USFWS Conservation Library. 2002. Fish & Wildlife Resources Conservation Priorities – 

Region 3 (v. 2.0). U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 

Washington DC. http://library.fws.gov/pubs3/

priorities02.pdf. 

Walker, W. S., B. V. Barnes, and D. M. Kashian. 2003. 

Landscape ecosystems of the Mack Lake 

Burn, northern lower Michigan, and the 

occurrence of the Kirtland’s Warbler. Forest 

Science 49:119-139.

Walkinshaw, L. 1972. Kirtland’s Warbler: The Natural History of an Endangered Species. Wayne 

State University Press. 207p.

Appendix H: List of Preparers

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

115

Appendix H: List of Preparers 

Appendix H: List of Preparers

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

117

List of Preparers

Refuge Staff: 

 Tracy Casselman, Refuge Manager

 Greg Corace, Forester

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

Appendix I: Mailing List

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

119

Appendix I: Mailing List 

Appendix I: Mailing List

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

121

Mailing List

The following is a list of government offices, private organizations, and individuals who will receive 

notice of the availability of this CCP. 

Federal Officials

 U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow

 U.S. Senator Carl Levin

 U.S. Representative Dave Camp

 U.S. Representative Bart Stupak

Federal Agencies

 USDA/Natural Resource Conser vation Ser -

vice

 USDA/ F orest Service, H iawatha National 

Forest

 USDI/Fish an d W ildlife Ser vice, Albuquer -

que, New Mexico; Anchorage, Alaska; 

Atlanta, Georgia; Denver, Colorado; Fort 

Snelling, Minnesota; Hadley, Massachusetts; 

Portland, Oregon; Sacramento, California; 

Washington, D.C.

 USDI/East L ansing Privat e La nds O ffice; 

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

Federal and State Officials

 Governor Jennifer Granholm 

 U.S. Senator Carl Levin

 U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow

 U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak

 U.S. Rep. Dave Camp

 State Sen. Michelle McManus

 State Sen. Tony Stamas

 State Sen. Jason Allen

 State Rep. Matthew Gillard

 State Rep. Dale Sheltrown

 State Rep. Tim Moore

 State Rep. Howard Walker

State Agencies

 Director, Mi chigan De partment of Natural 

Resources

 Area M anagers a nd Biologists, M ichigan 

DNR

 State Historic Preservation Officer, Lansing, 

Michigan

City/County/Local Governments

 City of Gaylord

 City of Grayling

 Clare County

 Crawford County

 Kalkaska County

 Montmorency County

 Oscoda County

 Ogemaw County

 Presque Isle County

 Roscommon County

Libraries

 Libraries within the eight county region

Organizations

 The Nature Conservancy

 National Audubon Society

 Conservation Fund

 Michigan United Conservation Clubs

 Wildlife Management Institute

 Great Lakes Commission

 Wildlife Management Institute

 PEER Refuge Keeper

 The Wilderness Society, Washington, D.C.

 National W ildlife Federation, Ann Arbo r, 

Michigan

 The Conservation Fund, Arlington, Virgina
Appendix I: Mailing List

Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

122

Media

 Local Radio and TV Stations; Refuge Media 

Contacts

 Detroit News

 Detroit Free Press

 Michigan Radio News

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 Preser vation

Individuals

 Individuals who participated in open houses, 

sent written comments, or requested to be on 

the mailing list.