Gene - my two cents:

I urge that they should keep it (and all of H-M Is.!) as wild as possible.  It will 
last much longer that way.  I don't think it needs any new buildings or 
facilities, with the possible exception of a port-a-john at either end.  Any 
facility construction will eat up funding, and will require future maintenance 
funding - please keep any structures as basic as necessary, the more facilities 
there are the more expensive it gets, and eventually the funding comes out of 
the wildlife's hide.

You've all seen how a great wild place can become less great - it often 
happens every time there is a new manager (or agency head) who needs to 
prove their worth, demonstrate their strategic vision, and show accountability 
of the services they provide to the scrutinous bean counters who dole out 
agency funds.  Eventually the agency is spending the MAJORITY of its funding 
managing visitors and employees, and less on managing natural resources.

I urge that we keep the primary focus (and funding) here on wetland habitat 
for migrating and breeding shorebirds, waterfowl, waders, etc., and open/field 
habitats for those habitat-specific bird species (certain sparrows, bobolinks, 
larks, etc.).  Conveniences proposed for visitors must be VERY secondary, and 
I think are even unnecessary.  Keep the appeal to people low, and you can be 
sure the resulting appeal to birds will be very high.  One of my primary joys 
from going there is to get away from people for an entire day and get lost in 
watching  birds.  Yes, there is the joy of the great company (Gene and many 
other insightful people) I have met there.

But I stress visitation should be kept low - by this I mean the number of 
people actually walking around on the island.  What do you think the carrying 
capacity could or should be Gene?  Though it is hardly a wilderness, it is a 
somewhat wild experience to walk the perimeter, since access to the island is 
so limited and there are very few people present, with no people randomly or I 
should say aimlessly walking around.  I would suggest establishing a 
reasonable limit on the number of visitors allowed on the island at any one 
time (establish a maximum day use threshold = people at any one time).  I am 
not talking about boaters in the "boat" area, I am talking about folks walking 
around the island itself.  If the area used by boaters could stay the same as 
its current use, with no access to the island from the "boat" area, it will not 
adversely affect the habitat and wildlife, but if access to the island were 
opened up I think it could have a dramatic impact on the habitat and 
especially its wildlife.

I will consent to the possible benefits of an electric golf cart for use by a 
handicap visitor or as an emergency vehicle (i.e., transport an injured or heat 
exhausted person).  And, depending on the finished height of the walkway or 
trail, an oberservation deck is not needed.  But if the proposed changes to the 
existing setting are to one with only a level view, elevated blinds are needed.  
And they should be linear, not square or rectangular, and able to accomodate 
at least a dozen people at one time, preferably.  They would ideally have a 
bench in them, and a roof would be nice but is optional.

H-M Island is truly an exceptional wildlife habitat resource, of regional 
importance if not national significance (Dave Curson - what do you think? i.e., 
IBA criteria?).  We should act now and be steadfast to ensure its future 
longevity and sustainability.

Cheers!
Jeff Shenot
Croom MD