Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island National Wildlife Refuges Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
MARCH 3, 1849
U.S.DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
MARCH 3, 1849
U.S.DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Eastern Shore of Virginia and
Fisherman Island
National Wildlife Refuges
Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment
March 2003
Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island
National Wildlife Refuges
5003 Hallet Circle
Cape Charles, Virginia 23310
Federal Relay Service
for the deaf and hard-of-hearing
1 800/877 8339
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
http://www.fws.gov
For Refuge Information
1 800/344 WILD
March 2003
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island National Wildlife Refuges
Cover Photo: Drawing of Warblers and
Monarch Butterflies
Margaret Barnaby
This goose, designed by J.N. “Ding”
Darling, has become a symbol of the
National Wildlife Refuge System.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal federal agency responsible for
conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats for the
continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the 93-million acre
National Wildlife Refuge system comprised of more than 535 national wildlife
refuges and thousands of waterfowl production areas. It also operates 65 national
fish hatcheries and 78 ecological services field stations. The agency enforces federal
wildlife laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant
fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, administers the
Endangered Species Act, and helps foreign governments with their conservation
efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid Program which distributes hundreds of
millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state wildlife
agencies.
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long term guidance for management
decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge
purposes and identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail
program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget
allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program
prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing
increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land
acquisition.
Eastern Shore of Virginia and
Fisherman Island
National Wildlife Refuges
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment
Vision Statement
Lying at the tip of the Delmarva Peninsula, the Eastern Shore
of Virginia and Fisherman Island National Wildlife Refuges are
part of a national system of lands managed to ensure the
future of wildlife and their habitats. These refuges serve as
one of the country’s most valuable stopovers for migratory
birds. Nestled between the Atlantic Ocean and Chesapeake
Bay, the refuges include a variety of habitats such as maritime
forest, shrub thickets, grasslands, beaches and tidal wetlands.
These habitats provide a vital link for millions of songbirds,
raptors, shorebirds and butterflies to rest and refuel before
continuing the rigorous journey to their wintering grounds.
Future conservation efforts lie in the refuges’ commitment to
protecting and enhancing the migration corridor through
preserving, acquiring and revegetating hardwood, shrub and
grassland areas. Alliances with nearby landowners will
increase available habitat, and research will focus on
augmenting our knowledge to make biologically sound
management decisions.
The thousands of people that annually visit this gateway to the
eastern shore of Virginia will gain an appreciation of the
refuges’ unique ecological role. In partnership with the local
community, the refuges will also promote the area as a regional
tourist destination that contributes to the economic stability
and enhances the quality of life on the eastern shore of
Virginia. Visitors will leave with an understanding that this
place of incredible diversity and ecological importance is part of
a larger network of protected lands within the National Wildlife
Refuge System, set aside specifically for wildlife.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Northeast Regional Office
300 Westgate Center Drive
Hadley, MA 01035
March 2003
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
We fully describe, evaluate and compare four alternative comprehensive conservation plans in this Draft
Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Eastern Shore of
Virginia and Fisherman Island National Wildlife Refuges. Following is a brief overview of each
alternative:
Alternative A: This alternative is our No Action alternative required by the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. Selection of this alternative would maintain the status quo; there would
be no change to current management practices. Alternative A provides a baseline for comparing and
contrasting the other three alternatives.
Alternative B: This alternative represents the Service’s Proposed Action, or the alternative currently
recommended for approval. Selecting this alternative would expand the Eastern Shore of Virginia
Refuge’s current land acquisition boundary to include an additional 6,030 acres. Alternative B would
increase protection and management of endangered, threatened and other species of concern. This
alternative would also increase opportunities for all wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities.
Under Alternative B, the refuge would focus management efforts on protecting, restoring, and
enhancing habitats for forest and shrub-dependent neotropical and temperate migratory birds.
Alternative C: Similar to Alternative B, this alternative would also expand the Eastern Shore of
Virginia Refuge’s current land acquisition boundary to include an additional 6,030 acres. Alternative C
would also increase protection and management of endangered, threatened and other species of concern.
However, the refuge would focus management efforts on protecting, restoring, and enhancing habitat for
grassland and open habitat-dependent neotropical and temperate migrant birds. This alternative
proposes to expand all wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities except hunting.
Alternative D: Under Alternative D, the refuge would focus management efforts on maintaining and
restoring the natural dynamics of the ecosystems of the lower Delmarva Peninsula. Off-refuge land
conservation efforts would focus on preservation and/or restoration of the historic vegetative regimes.
There is no specified land acquisition proposal in this alternative. Alternative D would not expand
hunting or fishing opportunities on the refuges, though it would expand all other wildlife-dependent
recreational opportunities.
This Draft CCP/EA also includes 11 Appendices which provide additional information supporting our
analysis.
Abstract
Type of Action: Administrative - Development of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Location: Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island National Wildlife Refuges,
Northampton County, Virginia
Lead Agency: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Responsible Official: Richard O. Bennett, Ph.D., Acting Regional Director
For Further Information: Beth Goldstein, Planning Team Leader
Northeast Regional Office
300 Westgate Center Drive
Hadley, MA 01035
(413) 253-8564
Readers Guide
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service planning process for all National Wildlife Refuges involves generally
two levels of planning: 1) the development of a broad Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP); and, 2)
the formulation of more step-down detailed management plans required to fully implement the CCP.
Public involvement and compliance with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) have been
incorporated into the process at all appropriate stages.
This Draft Environmental Assessment provides NEPA compliance for the future management of the
Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island National Wildlife Refuges. Following the release of
our final NEPA decision document (a Finding of No Signifigant Impact [FONSI] in the case of an
environmental assessment) we will release the final CCP for the refuges. The CCP will consist of
information currently found in the following sections of this document:
• Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action
• Chapter 2: Alternatives
• Chapter 3: Affected Environment
• Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences
• Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination with Others
• Appendices
• Maps
The final approved CCP will provide the vision and strategic direction for the Eastern Shore of Virginia
and Fisherman Island National Wildlife Refuges. When fully implemented, the CCP will help achieve
the refuges purpose, fufill the National Wildlife Refuge System Mission, maintain and/or restore the
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the refuges, and meet other mandates. The
CCP will also guide management decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies to accomplish
these ends. We may also require step-down management plans to provide additional details about CCP
goals, objectives, and strategies, and to describe schedules for implementation. The CCP will be based
on the principles of sound fish and wildlife management, available science, legal mandates, and other
policies, guidelines, and planning documents. It will, above all else, ensure wildlife comes first on the
refuges.
For further information on our planning process, please refer to part 602 of the Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice
Manual, National Wildlife Refuge System Planning.
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need For Action 1-1
Introduction............................................................................................................... 1-2
Purpose of And Need For Action.............................................................................. 1-2
Decisions to be Made................................................................................................. 1-3
Planning Area............................................................................................................ 1-3
Establishing Legislation............................................................................................ 1-5
National and Regional Mandates Guiding the Project............................................. 1-8
Other Legal and Policy Guidelines........................................................................... 1-9
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process............................................... 1-18
Chapter 2: Alternatives 2-1
Formulating Alternatives.......................................................................................... 2-2
Features Common to all Alternatives........................................................................ 2-3
Alternative A - Current Management....................................................................... 2-8
Alternative B - Proposed Action............................................................................... 2-23
Alternative C............................................................................................................. 2-54
Alternative D............................................................................................................. 2-68
Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration............................................ 2-88
Actions and Strategies Matrix ... 2-89
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-1
Refuge Administration............................................................................................ 3-2
Physical Environment............................................................................................. 3-7
Biological Resources............................................................................................... 3-23
Socio-Economic Factors......................................................................................... 3-40
Cultural Resources................................................................................................. 3-50
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 4-1
Introduction............................................................................................................. 4-2
Staffing and Budgets............................................................................................... 4-3
Physical Environment............................................................................................. 4-5
Biological Resources............................................................................................... 4-11
Socio-Economic Factors.......................................................................................... 4-43
Cultural Resources................................................................................................. 4-63
Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................ 4-66
Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination with Others 5-1
Introduction............................................................................................................. 5-2
Public Involvement Summary.................................................................................. 5-2
List of Preparers..................................................................................................... 5-5
Table of Contents
Appendix A: Trust Resources and Other Species and Habitats of Special
Management Concern...................................................................... A-1
Appendix B: Relevant Federal Laws.................................................................... B-1
Appendix C: Refuge Cover Type Maps................................................................ C-1
Appendix D: Refuge Species List........................................................................ D-1
Appendix E: Cultural Resources......................................................................... E-1
Appendix F: Compatability.................................................................................... F-1
Appendix G: RONS and MMS Project Lists....................................................... G-1
Appendix H: Glossary of Terms............................................................................ H-1
Appendix I: Staffing Charts.................................................................................. I-1
Appendix J: Literature Cited................................................................................ J-1
Appendix K: Draft Land Protection Plan.............................................................. K-1
Maps
Map 1-1 Vicinity Map..................................................................................... 1-4
Map 1-2 Refuge Status, Eastern Shore of Virginia Refuge........................... 1-6
Map 1-3 Refuge Status, Fisherman Island Refuge........................................ 1-7
Map 1-4 Ecosystem Map................................................................................ 1-14
Map 2-1 Alt. A, Habitat Management, Eastern Shore of Virginia Refuge.... 2-20
Map 2-2 Alt. A, Public Use, Eastern Shore of Virginia Refuge ................... 2-21
Map 2-3 Alt. A, Public Use, Fisherman Island Refuge................................. 2-22
Map 2-4 Alt. B, Habitat Management, Eastern Shore of Virginia Refuge ... 2-50
Map 2-5 Alt. B, Public Use, Eastern Shore of Virginia Refuge.................... 2-51
Map 2-6 Alt. B, Public Use, Fisherman Island Refuge................................. 2-52
Map 2-7 Alt. B, Draft Land Protection Plan.................................................. 2-53
Map 2-8 Alt. C, Habitat Management, Eastern Shore of Virginia Refuge..... 2-65
Map 2-9 Alt. C, Public Use, Eastern Shore of Virginia Refuge.................... 2-66
Map 2-10 Alt. C, Public Use, Fisherman Island Refuge................................. 2-67
Map 2-11 Alt. D, Public Use, Eastern Shore of Virginia Refuge.................... 2-86
Map 2-12 Alt. D, Public Use, Fisherman Island Refuge................................. 2-87
Map 3-1 Habitat Management Units.............................................................. 3-26
Map 3-2 Deer Hunting Zones......................................................................... 3-47
Appendices
Chapter 1
Pelican colony.
Mike R. Bryant
Purpose of and Need
for Action
  Introduction
  Purpose of and Need for Action
  Decisions to be Made
  Planning Area
  National and Regional Mandates Guiding the Project
  Other Legal and Policy Guidelines
  CCP Planning Process
1-2 Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island NWRs
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action
Introduction
The purpose of Chapter 1 is to:
Describe the Planning Area;
Describe the need for a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)
for the Eastern Shore of Virginia National Wildlife Refuge (Eastern
Shore of Virginia Refuge) and Fisherman Island National Wildlife
Refuge (Fisherman Island Refuge);
Identify the National, regional and State plans, guidelines and
mandates that influenced this project;
Highlight the purposes for which the refuges were established;
Explain the planning process used for developing this CCP.
The information provided in this Chapter sets the stage for
Chapters 2 through 5. Chapter 2 describes alternative strategies for
meeting goals and objectives and compares them to current
management strategies. Chapter 3 describes the existing physical,
biological, and human environment. Chapter 4 evaluates the
environmental consequences of implementing each of the proposed
management alternatives. Chapter 5 discusses the consultation and
coordination process that took place during the project, and provides
a list of preparers.
Purpose of and Need for Action
The purpose of this document is to evaluate a reasonable range of
alternative management strategies for the refuges. Each alternative
was generated with the potential to be fully developed into a CCP.
Our intent in this document is to clearly and accurately display the
predicted social, economic, physical, and biological impacts of
implementing each alternative, as required by the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). From this analysis, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service=s (Service) Regional Director will
select an alternative to be fully developed into a separate, stand-alone
CCP for the refuges.
The CCP is vital to the future management of the Eastern Shore of
Virginia and Fisherman Island Refuges. The final CCP will provide
strategic management direction over the next 10-15 years by serving
to:
Provide a clear statement of the desired future conditions for
habitat, wildlife, facilities, and people;
Provide neighbors, visitors, and partners with a clear understanding
of the reasons for management actions on and around the refuges;
Draft CCP/EA - March 2003 1-3
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action
Ensure management of the refuges reflects the policies and
goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System);
Ensure the compatibility of current and future uses of the refuges;
Provide long-term continuity and direction in management;
Provide a basis for staffing, operations, maintenance, and the
development of budget requests.
The need to develop a CCP for each of the refuges is two-fold.
First, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
(Refuge Improvement Act) requires all National Wildlife Refuges to
have a CCP in place by 2012 to help fulfill the mission of the Refuge
System. Second, there is currently no master plan establishing
priorities and ensuring consistent and integrated management for
the refuges. A vision statement, goals, objectives, and management
strategies are needed to effectively manage natural resources.
Persistent issues related to structures on the refuges, access to and
through the refuges, and habitat management must be resolved with
public and partner involvement. Finally, there is a need to establish
formal acquisition boundaries to delineate additional lands to be
acquired. This would ensure the long-term protection of nationally
significant migratory bird resources.
Decisions to be Made
Based on the analysis documented in this Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA), the
Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
will select a preferred alternative to be fully developed into a CCP
for the refuges. Selection of the preferred alternative will be made
based on an evaluation of the Service=s mission, the purposes for
which the refuges were established, legal mandates, and response to
this Draft CCP/EA. In accordance with NEPA, the Service=s
Regional Director must also determine whether the selected
management alternative will have a significant impact on the quality
of the human environment. If there is a significant impact,
additional analysis will be required in an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). If there is no significant impact, we will issue a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), and implementation of
the preferred alternative can begin immediately.
Planning Area
This Draft CCP/EA covers the Eastern Shore of Virginia and
Fisherman Island National Wildlife Refuges (refuges) (see Map 1-1).
Eastern Shore of Virginia National Wildlife Refuge
The Eastern Shore of Virginia Refuge consists of 1,120 acres. Of
that total acreage, 1,019 acres are located at the southern tip of the
Hiker on trail.
USFWS photo
1-4 Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island NWRs
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action
Map 1-1
Draft CCP/EA - March 2003 1-5
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action
Delmarva Peninsula in Northampton County, Virginia, at the mouth
of the Chesapeake Bay (see Map 1-2). The remaining 108 acres are
located on Skidmore Island, which lies one mile east of the mainland.
The refuge was created in 1984, when 180 acres were transferred to
the Service from the U.S. Air Force through the General Services
Administration.
The Eastern Shore of Virginia Refuge contains a variety of habitats,
such as maritime forest, myrtle and bayberry thickets, grassland,
fresh and brackish ponds, tidal salt marsh and beach. The refuge
and its adjoining woodlands are regarded as one of the most
important migratory bird corridors along the East Coast,
comparable to the better known Cape May, New Jersey. This
importance stems from the fact that the Delmarva Peninsula acts as
a geographic funnel for migratory birds in the fall. It is on the
Eastern Shore of Virginia Refuge where millions of migratory birds
rest and feed until favorable winds blow to assist them in crossing
the Chesapeake Bay.
Fisherman Island National Wildlife Refuge
Fisherman Island is the southernmost barrier island. It is
separated from the Eastern Shore of Virginia Refuge by
approximately one-half mile of sea called Fisherman’s Inlet (see
Map 1-3). Accretion continues to expand the island’s size, currently
estimated at 1,850 acres. Fisherman Island Refuge was established
in 1969, and transferred to the Department of the Interior by 1973.
It was managed as an unstaffed satellite of Back Bay National
Wildlife Refuge until 1984, when management was turned over to the
newly established Eastern Shore of Virginia Refuge. The last 25
acres, owned by the U.S. Department of Defense, were transferred
to the Department of the Interior in 2000, putting the entire island
under one ownership.
Habitat succession has formed a mosaic of vegetative communities
capable of withstanding the harsh conditions present on the island.
The variety of habitats combined with the geographic location of the
island, the accessibility of food, protective shrub and thicket cover,
and minimal human disturbance make this island an important
stopover location for migratory birds. Fisherman Island, however,
is not undisturbed. The Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel (Bridge-
Tunnel), which links mainland Virginia to the eastern shore, cuts
through the western part of the island.
Establishing Legislation
Refuges are established administratively under several authorities
or they can be established with specific legislation by Congress.
The Eastern Shore of Virginia Refuge was established
administratively through the following general legislative authorities:
Hardwood Forest.
Kurt Buhlmann
1-6 Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island NWRs
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action
Draft CCP/EA - March 2003 1-7
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action
1-8 Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island NWRs
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action
Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation
Purposes Act (16 U.S.C. 667b-667d): Aauthorizing land to be
transferred without reimbursement to the Secretary of the Interior
if the land has particular value for migratory birds.@
Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4): Aauthorizing
acquisition of lands and interests suitable for: 1) fish and wildlife-oriented
recreation, 2) protection of natural resources, and 3)
conservation of endangered or threatened species...@
Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e, 715f-
715r): authorizing the acquisition of land A...for use as an inviolate
sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory
birds.@
Fisherman Island Refuge was established administratively through
the following legislation:
Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation
Purposes Act (16 U.S.C. 667b-667d): Aauthorizing land to be
transferred without reimbursement to the Secretary of the Interior
if the land has particular value for migratory birds.@
Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e, 715f-
715r): authorizing the acquisition of land A...for use as an inviolate
sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory
birds.@
National and Regional Mandates Guiding the Project
This section presents hierarchically, from the national level to the
local level, highlights of legal mandates, Service policy, and existing
resource plans which directly influenced development of this Draft
CCP/EA.
U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its Mission
National Wildlife Refuges are managed by the Service, part of the
Department of Interior. The mission of the Service is:
A...working with others, to conserve, protect and
enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the
continuing benefit of the American people.@
National resources entrusted to the Service for conservation and
protection are: migratory birds, endangered species,
interjurisdictional fish, wetlands, and certain marine mammals. The
Service manages the Refuge System and National Fish Hatcheries,
enforces federal wildlife laws and international treaties on importing
and exporting wildlife, assists with state fish and wildlife programs,
and helps other countries develop wildlife conservation programs.
Canoeing.
USFWS photo
Draft CCP/EA - March 2003 1-9
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action
The National Wildlife Refuge System and its Mission
The Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands set
aside specifically for the conservation of wildlife and ecosystem
protection. The Refuge System began in 1903, when President
Theodore Roosevelt designated three-acre Pelican Island, a pelican
and heron rookery in Florida, as a bird sanctuary. Today there are
more than 535 National Wildlife Refuges occurring in every state
and a few U.S. Territories, totaling more than 93 million acres
nationwide. Over 34 million visitors annually hunt, fish, observe and
photograph wildlife, and participate in environmental education and
interpretive activities on refuges.
In 1997, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act was
passed. This legislation established a unifying mission for the
Refuge System, a new process for determining compatible public
use activities on refuges, and the requirement to prepare CCPs for
each refuge. The Refuge Improvement Act states that first and
foremost, the Refuge System must focus on wildlife conservation. It
further states that the national mission, coupled with the purpose(s)
for which each refuge was established, will provide the principal
management direction for each refuge.
The mission of the Refuge System is:
“...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the
conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of
the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the
United States for the benefit of present and future generations of
Americans.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997, Public Law 105-57)
The Refuge Improvement Act identifies six wildlife-dependent
public uses -- hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography,
environmental education and interpretation -- that should be
facilitated on National Wildlife Refuges and shall receive priority
consideration in the CCP process. The Act also declares that all
existing or proposed refuge uses must be Acompatible@ with the
purposes of the refuge and the mission of the system. The refuge
manager determines if an existing or proposed refuge use is
compatible by ensuring the use does not materially interfere with or
detract from the fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge System
mission or the purposes of the refuge.
Other Legal and Policy Guidelines
While the Refuge System mission and the purposes for which each
refuge was established provide the foundation for management,
National Wildlife Refuges are also governed by other Federal laws,
Executive Orders, treaties, interstate compacts, regulations and
conservation initiatives pertaining to the conservation and protection
of natural and cultural resources. Appendix B provides a summary
Great blue heron.
USFWS photo
1-10 Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island NWRs
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action
of some of the more important Federal laws, mandates and other
guiding documents related to management of National Wildlife
Refuges. Listed below are the ones most pertinent to this CCP.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge System Manual and the National
Wildlife Refuge System Manual contain Service policies providing
guidance on planning and the day-to-day management of a refuge.
Fulfilling the Promise
A 1999 report, entitled AFulfilling the Promise, The National Wildlife
Refuge System: Visions for Wildlife, Habitat, People and
Leadership@ (USFWS 1999a), is a culmination of a year-long
process by teams of Service employees to evaluate the Refuge
System nation-wide. This report was the focus of the first ever,
National Refuge System Conference held in Keystone, Colorado in
October 1998, and attended by almost every refuge manager, other
Service employees, and leading conservation organizations. The
report contains 42 recommendations packaged with three vision
statements dealing with wildlife and habitat, people, and leadership.
This Draft CCP/EA deals with all three of these major topics, and
we have looked to the recommendations in the document for
guidance throughout the plan. For example, the AFulfilling the
Promises@ document specifically recommends developing systematic
species and habitat monitoring. Across all the alternatives in the
CCP, we enforce the need to conduct standardized Region 5 surveys
and to use peer-reviewed protocol to collect baseline and trend data
on plants and animals located on the Eastern Shore of Virginia and
Fisherman Island Refuges. The 1999 report also recommends
forging new alliances through citizen and community partnerships,
and strengthening partnerships with the business community. One
of our goals in the CCP is devoted almost entirely to partnerships,
and most of the other goals include at least some objectives and/or
strategies which direct the refuge to forge new partnerships or
strengthen existing ones.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP),
signed by the United States and Canada in 1986 and by Mexico in
1994, offers a strategy to protect North America’s remaining
wetlands and to conserve waterfowl populations through habitat
protection, restoration, and enhancement (USFWS 1988). The plan
was updated in 1998 with an emphasis on strengthening the
biological foundation, using a landscape approach and expanding
partnerships. Implementation of this plan is accomplished at the
regional level within 11 regional habitat “Joint Venture” areas.
Partnerships involve Federal, state and provincial governments,
tribal nations, local businesses, conservation organizations, and
individual citizens for the purpose of protecting habitat within Joint
Venture Areas. The Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman
Island Refuges are located within the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture
Draft CCP/EA - March 2003 1-11
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action
area, which covers the entirety of the Atlantic Coast states and
Puerto Rico. The goal for the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture is to
AProtect and manage priority wetland habitats for migration,
wintering, and production of waterfowl, with special consideration to
black ducks, and to benefit other wildlife in the joint venture area.@
Virginia=s eastern shore is one of 10 focus areas identified in the
Joint Venture Plan for the State of Virginia. Priority habitats
include tidal brackish high marsh bordering the eastern side of the
Chesapeake Bay. Those marshes support populations of migrating,
wintering and nesting black ducks. Other dabbling ducks use the
area during migration and wintering, as do Canada Geese.
Associated wetlands are valuable to numerous species of finfish and
shellfish as nursery and production areas. The Joint Venture Plan
identifies a total of 57,575 acres in Virginia for protection and 2,825
acres for enhancement. Of that total, almost 8,000 acres in
Accomack County (just north of the refuge) are slated either for
protection or enhancement.
The Atlantic Coast Joint Venture Plan is being revised to reflect the
expanded geographic area and vision of the Joint Venture area. The
revised plan will have a stronger scientific basis for habitat and
population goals. Focus areas have been revised in cooperation with
state partners. These focus areas are based on important waterfowl
areas but also take into account the needs of other migratory birds.
Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island Refuges are both
within the Delmarva Peninsula Focus Area. Information from the
Atlantic Coast Joint Venture Plan will be integrated with
information from the other major migratory bird initiatives -
Partners in Flight, U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, and North
American Waterbird Conservation Plan - in the seven Bird
Conservation Regions in the Joint Venture area. Those seven Bird
Conservation Regions from north to south are Atlantic Northern
Forest, Lower Great Lakes - St. Lawrence, New England - Mid
Atlantic, Appalachian Mountains, Piedmont, South Atlantic Coastal
Plain, and Peninsular Florida. The full revised implementation plan
should be available in 2003.
Partners in Flight: Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain Bird Conservation Plan (Physiographic
Area #44)
The Partners in Flight (PIF) Program has developed a draft plan
for the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic Area (USFWS
1999b). The challenge, says the plan, is managing human population
growth while maintaining functional natural ecosystems. To meet
this challenge, the plan identifies priority land bird species and
habitat types, and recommends specific objectives aimed at
protecting those species and their breeding habitats. We use the
components of this plan as one of the guidelines in directing bird
management on the Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island
Refuges. The plan ranks species conservation importance within a
regional area based on a variety of factors including global threats to
Salt marsh.
USFWS photo
1-12 Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island NWRs
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action
the species, high concern for regional or local populations, or
responsibility for conserving large or important populations of the
species. Examples of high conservation priority species on
Fisherman Island include the seaside sparrow, prairie warbler,
clapper rail, and American black duck. The Eastern Shore of
Virginia Refuge provides breeding habitat for high priority species
such as prairie warblers, northern bobwhite, eastern towhee, field
sparrow and yellow-billed cuckoo. Our planning objectives and
strategies were devised to benefit breeding populations of these
species in conjunction with migrant habitat objectives whenever
possible.
The PIF draft plan also ranks habitats based on overall conservation
priority. Six of the eight habitat types identified in the plan are
found currently or historically on the Eastern Shore of Virginia or
Fisherman Island Refuges. Those six habitat types are barrier and
bay islands, salt marsh, forested wetland, mixed upland forest, early
successional, and fresh/brackish emergent wetland.
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan
The United States Shorebird Conservation Plan (Brown, et al. 2001)
was developed as a partnership between various Federal, state and
non-governmental organizations with the purpose of creating
conservation goals, identifying critical habitat conservation needs
and promoting education and outreach programs to facilitate
shorebird conservation. The plan has set goals at the hemispheric,
national and regional levels. At the regional scale, the Eastern
Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island Refuges fall into the North
Atlantic planning region. Undeveloped wetlands and beaches are
rare in this region, causing those habitats to be especially important.
Species of concern in the region with a high conservation priority for
either breeding, migrating or wintering include piping plover,
American oystercatcher, sanderling, whimbrel and American
woodcock. Proposed strategies in the CCP, such as increased
monitoring on Fisherman Island Refuge, address the need to protect
these and other high priority shorebird species identified in the U.S.
Shorebird Conservation Plan.
The Neotropical Migratory Songbird Coastal Corridor Study
Repeated accounts of population declines for many neotropical
migratory songbird species have sparked widespread concern that
has given way to national and international conservation initiatives
(Mabey et al., 1993). Although research and protection efforts have
largely focused on fragmentation and loss of breeding and wintering
habitats, migratory stopover habitats like the southern tip of the
Delmarva Peninsula are in need of comparable attention. Migration
is a physiological stressful cycle in avian life, when all resources
take on added significance.
Interns banding royal terns.
USFWS photo
Draft CCP/EA - March 2003 1-13
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action
In fall 1991, the Neotropical Migratory Songbird Coastal Corridor
Study (Mabey et al., 1993) examined the distribution and habitat
associations of fall migrating landbirds within the coastal regions of
four states along the Atlantic Coast - New Jersey, Delaware,
Maryland and Virginia. Together, these states make up the Cape
May and Delmarva Peninsulas, two areas known for their significant
contribution to migratory bird stopover habitat. The study identified
clear distribution patterns associated with neotropical migrants,
suggesting migrants are more abundant in areas close to coastlines
(within 0-0.9 miles) than they are in equivalent areas farther away
from the coast, and that bay coastal zones have higher densities of
migrants than seaside coastal zones or interior regions. This study
was crucial in our decision to choose Alternative B as our Preferred
Alternative, since that Alternative focuses on providing neotropical
migrants with food and cover habitat on the lower Delmarva
Peninsula. We also relied heavily on this study to formulate our land
protection strategies in the CCP as well as in the Land Protection
Plan, included as an appendix to this CCP.
The Ecosystem Approach to Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Throughout the last decade, the Service has placed more emphasis
on focusing habitat and wildlife protection on entire ecosystems. To
this end, the Service has initiated new partnerships with private
landowners, state and Federal agencies, corporations, conservation
groups and volunteers. Implementing an ecosystem approach to
management is a top national priority for the Service. To further
this priority, 52 Ecosystem Teams were formed across the country,
typically using large river watersheds to define ecosystems.
Individual Ecosystem Teams are comprised of Service professionals
and partners who work together to develop goals and priorities for
research and management.
The Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island Refuges are
contained within two ecosystems - the Delaware River/Delmarva
Coastal Area and the Chesapeake Bay/Susquehanna River
Watershed (See Map 1-4). The Delaware River/Delmarva Coastal
Area encompasses more than 16,000 square miles within six states.
It includes all areas draining into the Delaware River or the
Delaware Bay and all areas draining into the Atlantic Ocean
between Cape Henlopen, Delaware and Cape Charles, Virginia,
where the Eastern Shore of Virginia Refuge is located. The
Delaware River is the last free-flowing major river on the East
Coast, and the barrier island system from Assateague Island to
Fisherman Island is the largest remaining undeveloped barrier
island system along the Atlantic coast.
The Delaware River/Delmarva Coastal Watershed Team developed a
plan (USFWS 1996a) based on a set of AResource Priorities,@ or
goals, reflecting concern for priority species or groups of species,
habitat types of significance to Service trust resources, and
1-14 Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island NWRs
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action
Map 1-4
Draft CCP/EA - March 2003 1-15
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action
geographic focus areas within the ecosystem. Those Resource
Priorities are:
Migratory Birds: Protect, restore, and enhance migratory bird
habitats and populations, with emphasis on the coastal migration
corridor.
Wetlands: Protect, restore, and enhance wetland habitats, with
emphasis on Service-owned wetlands and other areas of exceptional
values.
Interior Forests: Preserve, manage, and prevent further
fragmentation of forest habitats suitable for migratory birds,
threatened and endangered species, and other interior forest
wildlife.
Endangered and Threatened Species: Protect and enhance
populations of threatened, endangered, and candidate species and
their habitats.
Interjurisdictional Fish: Protect and enhance populations of
interjurisdictional fish and their habitats.
Service-owned lands: Protect, restore, and manage trust resources
on Service-owned lands.
The Ecosystem team drafted numerous actions necessary to achieve
the above Resource Priorities. Many of those actions directly
involve Eastern Shore of Virginia Refuge. For example, one of the
actions supporting Resource Priority 1 is to protect key migration
stopover areas for migratory birds, with an emphasis on the
Eastern Shore of Virginia and Cape May, New Jersey. These two
areas function together as critical migration habitat on the mid-
Atlantic Coast.
The second ecosystem in which Eastern Shore of Virginia Refuge
and Fisherman Island Refuge are contained is the Chesapeake Bay/
Susquehanna River Watershed. This area spans a basin of 64,000
square miles, encompassing portions of Delaware, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of
Columbia. Waters from this expansive landscape flow into the
largest estuary in the United States.
Similar to the Delaware River/Delmarva Coastal Watershed Team=s
plan, the Chesapeake Bay/Susquehanna River Ecosystem Team=s
1997 plan (USFWS 1997a) contains goals directed towards
migratory birds, wetlands, endangered and threatened species,
interjurisdictional fisheries and land protection. The Chesapeake
Bay/Susquehanna River Ecosystem Team also included water
quality and environmental contaminants as issues to address in its
plan.
Oystercatcher with young.
USFWS photo
1-16 Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island NWRs
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action
Regional Wetland Concept Plan B Emergency Wetlands Resource Act, Northeast
Region
In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act
to promote the conservation of our nation=s wetlands. The Act
directed the Department of the Interior to develop a National
Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan identifying the location and
types of wetlands that should receive priority attention for
acquisition by Federal and state agencies using Land and Water
Conservation Fund appropriations. In 1990, the Service=s Northeast
Region completed a Regional Wetlands Concept Plan (USFWS 1990)
to provide more specific information about wetlands resources in the
Northeast. The Regional Plan identifies 850 wetland sites that
warrant consideration for acquisition. It also identifies wetland
values, functions, and potential threats for each site. There are 205
wetland sites for the state of Virginia, four of which are located
either on one of the refuges or within our proposed expanded
boundary. Those four sites are Butlers Bluff (50 acres), Fisherman
Island (1,500 acres), Magothy Bay (1,600 acres), and Plantation
Creek (700 acres).
Northeastern beach tiger beetle (Cincindela dorsalis dorsalis) Recovery Plan
The Northeastern beach tiger beetle (Cincindela dorsalis dorsalis),
a Federal listed species, has been recorded on the Chesapeake Bay
side of the Eastern Shore of Virginia Refuge since 1989. The most
recent survey (Knisley and Hill, 1999) of the tiger beetle on
Virginia=s Eastern Shore found 62 adults on the refuge and 18 on a
private beach abutting the refuge=s property to the north. The
refuge, however, has never had enough adult tiger beetles to
warrant a larval survey. That survey would determine whether the
refuge=s tiger beetle population is a breeding population. We include
strategies for conducting adult and larval surveys in Chapter 2.
We will follow the management goals and strategies laid out in the
Northeastern beach tiger beetle Recovery Plan (USFWS 1994a) to
guide actions related to the tiger beetle population on Eastern Shore
of Virginia Refuge. The primary objective of this Recovery Plan is
to remove the tiger beetle from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Recovery will require
reestablishing and protecting viable populations of the species
across its former range along the Atlantic Coast -- from Cape Cod to
central New Jersey -- and permanently protecting viable populations
along Chesapeake Bay beaches in Maryland and Virginia. Despite
an increase in the number of known populations in the Chesapeake
Bay area, the tiger beetle population there is by no means secure.
Few sites are protected and many are threatened by human impacts
such as habitat alteration and recreational activities.
Draft CCP/EA - March 2003 1-17
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action
Other Recovery Plans
Piping Plover
The Federal listed piping plover (Charadrius melodus) was last
recorded during the breeding season on Fisherman Island Refuge in
1992. Refuge records show plovers occurred in low numbers (1-3
pair) between 1979 and 1992 except for 1982, 1986, 1987 and 1989,
when no breeding birds were recorded. Refuge staff and
researchers regularly observed modest numbers (up to six at one
time) of feeding plovers during 2002 spring surveys on Fisherman
Island Refuge, and sightings of plovers feeding on Eastern Shore of
Virginia Refuge have occurred. Reasons for absence of recent
nesting activity may include the sparse and declining numbers of
breeding birds in this portion of the species’ range, sub-optimal (but
moderately suitable) habitat, and deterrence of plover courtship
activities by roosting herring and great black-backed gulls. Should
plovers be found breeding on either refuge, we would implement
recommended protection measures from the Revised Recovery Plan
(USFWS 1996b).
Seabeach amaranth
Seabeach amaranth was Federally listed as threatened in 1993 by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The amaranth is native to the
barrier islands beaches of the Atlantic Coast. An annual plant, this
species appears to need extensive areas of barrier island beaches
and inlets, functioning in a relatively natural and dynamic manner,
allowing it to move around in the landscape, occupying suitable
habitat as it becomes available (USFWS 1996c). It often grows in
the same areas selected for nesting by shorebirds such as plovers,
terns and skimmers. Threats include beach stabilization efforts
(particularly the use of beach armoring, such as sea walls and
riprap), intensive recreational use and herbivory by webworms.
Seabeach amaranth has historically occured in Northampton
County. Since Fisherman Island provides habitat for shorebirds, it
is also a potential host for seabeach amaranth. In the CCP, we
propose strategies for conducting seabeach amaranth surveys on
Fisherman Island, and for protecting the plant if discovered.
Delmarva Fox Squirrel
The Eastern Shore of Virginia Refuge is located in the historic
range of the Federal listed Delmarva fox squirrel (Sciurus niger
cinereus). No fox squirrels are located on the refuge now, and the
Delmarva Fox Squirrel Recovery Team has no specific plans to
translocate the squirrel to the refuge. However, the Recovery Team
is currently involved in discussions regarding if and to where the fox
squirrel should be translocated, and the refuge could be a potential
site. Generally, fox squirrel thrive in mixed deciduous-coniferous
forest with larger overstory trees, higher densities of soft mast-
Birdwatchers.
USFWS photo
1-18 Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island NWRs
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action
producing hardwoods, and lower densities of pine (USFWS 1993a).
Habitat management strategies in the Proposed Action of the CCP
are conducive to those fox squirrel habitat needs. However, it is
questionable that the refuge has enough suitable habitat to support a
viable fox squirrel population. Other concerns are that the
introduced individuals would be genetically isolated on the refuge
and probably would not remain a viable population in the long term.
Much of the land adjacent to the refuge is inhospitable (i.e.
agricultural fields); thus, emigrating fox squirrels would have
reduced survivorship. In addition, the grey squirrel population on
the refuge would cause inter-specific competition which could
decrease the fox squirrels’ chance of survival.
Bald Eagle
Although there are currently no bald eagles (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus) on either refuge, there are active eagle nesting
territories within the CCP’s proposed expansion area. We would
follow the goals and strategies of Recovery Plans if and when eagles
occur on refuge lands.
Peregrine Falcons
There has been one nesting pair of peregrine falcons (Falco
peregrinus) on Fisherman Island Refuge in recent years. Although
this species was delisted in 1999, we will still look to the Recovery
Plan for that species for guidance on ways in which to sustain and
increase the number of nesting peregrine falcons on the refuge.
State Recovery Plans
Currently, there are no known recovery plans for State listed
species. However, should any such recovery plans become available,
we would use them whenever practible to manage State-listed
species found on the refuges.
CCP Planning Process
Writing the Plan
The CCP is meant to give overall guidance for the protection, use
and development of the Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman
Island Refuges over the next 10-15 years. NEPA, meanwhile,
ensures the Service will also assess the environmental impacts of
any actions taken as a result of implementing the CCP. Figure 1-1
describes how the CCP process and the NEPA process have been
integrated in this document.
The planning process for the Eastern Shore of Virginia and
Fisherman Island Refuges began in March 1999. It was then that
the core planning team - consisting of field staff, staff from the
Service=s Northeast Regional Office, and staff from the Service=s
Laughing gull.
James Cameron
Draft CCP/EA - March 2003 1-19
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action
1-20 Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island NWRs
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action
Washington Office - began the process of identifying the vision,
goals and issues for the refuges. Separate meetings were held to
seek input from local and regional biological experts on natural
resources.
We compiled a mailing list of more than 900 people made up of
diverse individuals and groups including adjacent landowners,
sportsmens groups, environmental organizations, State fish and
wildlife agencies, local businesses, and other interested and affected
people. In August 1999, a newsletter was sent to everyone on the
mailing list explaining the CCP process and identifying current
issues on the refuges. The newsletter contained a workbook insert
that included questions to help collect the public=s ideas, concerns,
and suggestions on important issues associated with managing the
Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island Refuges. More
than 80 workbooks were completed and returned with responses to
the questions.
Three open houses and public information meetings were held on
August 24, 25 and 26 in Virginia Beach, Cape Charles and Melfa,
Virginia, respectively. Between five and 15 people attended each
meeting. Meetings were advertised locally through news releases,
paid advertisements, radio broadcasts, and through our mailing list.
Each meeting consisted of an Aopen house@ session where people
could informally learn of the project and have their questions or
concerns addressed. The evening public information meeting
sessions usually included a slide show presentation of the refuges, a
brief review of the Refuge System and the planning process, and a
question and answer session. Participants were encouraged to
actively express their opinions and suggestions.
We distributed another newsletter in November 1999 summarizing
public comments from the workbook and from public meetings. The
planning team held a series of workshops in November 1999 and
January 2000 to discuss with partners issues of habitat management
and public use, among other things. Individuals and groups
participating in the workshops included adjacent landowners, State
fish and wildlife agencies, local businesses and other interested and
affected people.
Once we firmed up the vision, goal statements and issue statements
for the refuges, we created a strategy for alternatives development
using the goal statements. This process lasted through December
2000. Finally, we looked at the environmental consequences of each
alternative.
After a 45-day public review of this Draft CCP/EA, we will compile
and respond to the comments. A decision document will then be
issued identifying the preferred alternative. Our response to the
public comments will be documented. As required under NEPA,
the Service needs to determine whether the preferred alternative
supports a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). If no
Draft CCP/EA - March 2003 1-21
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action
significant impact is predicted, implementation of the preferred
alternative can begin immediately. An evaluation of plan
accomplishments will occur each year.
Refuge Vision
The following vision statement was developed by the planning team
in order to describe the desired future status of the Eastern Shore
of Virginia and Fisherman Island Refuges:
Lying at the tip of the Delmarva Peninsula, the Eastern Shore of
Virginia and Fisherman Island National Wildlife Refuges are part of
a national system of lands managed to ensure the future of wildlife
and their habitats. These refuges serve as one of the country’s most
valuable stopovers for migratory birds. Nestled between the
Atlantic Ocean and Chesapeake Bay, the refuges include a variety of
habitats such as maritime forest, shrub thickets, grasslands,
beaches and tidal wetlands. These habitats provide a vital link for
millions of songbirds, raptors, shorebirds and butterflies to rest and
refuel before continuing the rigorous journey to their wintering
grounds.
Future conservation efforts lie in the refuges’ commitment to
protecting and enhancing the migration corridor through
preserving, acquiring and revegetating hardwood, shrub and
grassland areas. Alliances with nearby landowners will increase
available habitat, and research will focus on augmenting our
knowledge to make biologically sound management decisions.
The thousands of people who annually visit this gateway to the
eastern shore of Virginia will gain an appreciation of the refuges’
unique ecological role. In partnership with the local community, the
refuges will also promote the area as a regional tourist destination
that contributes to the economic stability and enhances the quality of
life on the eastern shore of Virginia. Visitors will leave with an
understanding that this place of incredible diversity and ecological
importance is part of a larger network of protected lands within the
National Wildlife Refuge System, set aside specifically for wildlife.
Refuge Goals
We have developed the following goals for the Eastern Shore of
Virginia and Fisherman Island Refuges. These goals highlight
specific elements of our vision statement which will be emphasized
in future management. The goals are not in order of priority.
1. Increase the availability of forage and cover habitat for
neotropical and temperate migrant birds and migrating
monarch butterflies.
2. Maintain the long-term productivity, integrity, and function
of the marsh, beach and interdunal communities.
Piping Plover.
USFWS photo
1-22 Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island NWRs
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action
3. Actively participate in the conservation of healthy hardwood,
understory, and grassland habitat for neotropical and
temperate migratory birds during future development
throughout Northampton County.
4. Provide wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities and
community outreach with an emphasis on educating the
public about the critical role the Delmarva Peninsula serves
for neotropical and temperate migratory birds and
migrating monarch butterflies.
5. Integrate the refuge into the larger community of the
eastern shore and promote awareness of the unique value of
the lower Delmarva Peninsula to neotropical and temperate
migratory birds and migrating monarch butterflies.
6. Enhance and restore the quality of the soils, waters, and
other abiotic components of the refuge and landscape.
Key Issues and Concerns
Key Issues were first identified by refuge staff and then put out for
public comment in newsletters and during public scoping meetings.
The original issues were then modified based on public input. The
above six goals statements, together with the following issues and
the range of options on how to resolve them, formed the basis for the
development and comparison of the alternatives proposed in Chapter
2. The following issues are in no order of priority:
Boat ramp: The Service purchased in December 2001 the Wise
Point in-holding that provides access to deep water through an
existing boat ramp. The boat ramp has historically been used by
recreational and commercial watermen. The refuge must balance its
responsibility to protect sensitive wildlife habitat with its role in
providing opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreational uses.
Firearms range: Northampton County maintains a firearms range
adjacent to the refuge for law enforcement personnel. The range
was built 50 years ago and does not meet current design for
contaminant standards. There are elevated levels of lead, arsenic
and antimony in the range area and it is unknown if these
contaminants have migrated off-site. In addition, noise generated
from range use conflicts with the serenity visitors seek while
visiting the refuge.
Communications tower: There is a communications tower located
on the refuge with a lease that expires in 2007. There has been some
interest by private industry and by Northampton County (County)
to increase the use of the tower. However, the tower is located in a
major migratory bird flight path and may cause a number of bird
fatalities.
Draft CCP/EA - March 2003 1-23
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action
Contaminant levels: With past military and agricultural uses in
and around the refuge, there are known and suspected areas with
elevated levels of contaminants.
Land acquisition: The tip of the peninsula is a major migratory
bird resting/refueling site recognized by Federal and State resource
agencies and the County’s own Comprehensive Plan. As the eastern
shore develops, the refuge and other natural areas become more
critical to these long-distance travelers. The refuge is small in size.
Preserving additional lands will help prevent the decline in wildlife.
The planning process will identify the role land acquisition will play
in our future plans.
Habitat management: Different species have different habitat
needs. Due to the small size of the refuge, active management for
every type of habitat and species is limited. The planning process
will help us make decisions regarding which habitats, and how
much, should be emphasized.
Invasive plant species: Non-native, invasive plant species have
taken over valuable habitat on the Eastern Shore of Virginia and
Fisherman Island Refuges. Japanese honeysuckle, kudzu, fennel,
and phragmites are just a few of the invasive species that choke out
native food sources for neotropical and temperate migratory birds.
Fisherman Island: Fisherman Island serves as a breeding and
nursery area for numerous bird species, including the largest
number of nesting royal terns and brown pelicans in Virginia. Our
management goals have been aimed at protecting the sensitive
natural resources by minimizing human impact to this ecosystem.
Hunting program: Current objectives are to maintain an annual
deer hunt. However, modifications may be needed to increase the
take of deer and to improve public safety adjacent to roads and
trails.
Beach access: There is a small population of the Federal listed
Northeastern beach tiger beetle on a beach located on the
Chesapeake Bay side of the Eastern Shore of Virginia Refuge. This
beach abuts other beach property that is privately owned and
operated by the Sunset Beach Resort. The resort’s beach is open
for public access, and has seen an increase in use over the past five
to 10 years. There is no physical barrier separating the refuge
beach from the private beach, and beach-goers have not
distinguished one from the other. In order to protect the population
of tiger beetles, we must take some action that will discourage or
prevent heavy public use on the refuge beach.
Cultural resources: Both refuges are home to many structures,
including bunkers and abandoned residences, that house materials
and objects. Some of the materials dating back to World War II
may have historic value and can be displayed at the Visitors Center
Fennel.
Charles Philip
1-24 Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island NWRs
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action
or stored in temperature-controlled rooms. Other items can be
donated to public or private organizations for display. Refuge staff
need to inventory these items to decide what to keep.
Step-Down Management Plans
The Refuge Manual (Part 4 Chapter 3) lists more than 25 Step-
Down Management Plans generally required on most refuges.
Step-Down Plans describe specific management actions refuges will
follow to achieve objectives or implement management strategies.
Some require annual revision, others are revised on a 5- to 10-year
schedule. Some require additional NEPA analysis, public
involvement, and compatibility determinations before they can be
implemented. A status list of refuge Step-Down Plans follows.
These plans are current and up-to-date:
2002 Hunt Plan
2000 Pollution Prevention Plan
1999 Contingency of Operations Plan
1995 Youth Conservation Corp Safety Plan
These plans exist, but we consider them out of date and needing revision:
1991 Wildlife Inventory Plan: A revision of this plan would be
incorporated in a proposed Species Inventory and Monitoring Plan
(see section below).
1993 Upland Habitat Management Plan: A revision of this plan
would be included in a new Habitat Management Plan.
1994 Public Use Management Plan: This plan, to be updated by
2006, would elucidate management direction and priority for public
use programs such as Visitor Center operation, environmental
education, outreach events, volunteers, and partnerships.
1998 Safety Plan: This plan, to be updated by 2006, would detail the
actions required, as per the Department of the Interior and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service policy, to: 1) provide a safe environment
for all employees, volunteers, and for the public when using our
facilities; 2) identify and correct unsafe conditions; 3) eliminate
unsafe acts; and 4) encourage accident prevention throughout the
workforce.
These step-down plans need to be initiated:
Completion or update of the following step-down plans are necessary
components for successful implementation for each of the
alternatives described in this Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
Additional management plans may be required as future Service
policy dictates.
Draft CCP/EA - March 2003 1-25
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action
Species Inventory and Monitoring Plan (2003): This plan would
provide specific guidance for the systematic accounting of temporal
and spatial trends in the abundance and diversity of species.
Inventories will obtain, at a minimum, information on the abundance
and distribution of vascular plants, vertebrates and Federally
endangered and threatened species. Monitoring efforts will target
carefully chosen species in an effort to convey information about the
status of the larger ecological system and the integrity of specific
habitats or ecosystem processes. Rigorous and quantitative
monitoring will be oriented toward management decision to ensure
scientifically-based management with proper feedback for adaptive
management decisions.
Invasive Species Management Plan (2005): This plan would describe
the control of non-native plant and animal species such as Japanese
honeysuckle, fennel, fescue grass, kudzu, autumn olive, phragmites,
and other exotic species which pose a threat to refuge habitat and
native species. Specific control methods and timing will be detailed
for both the Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island
Refuges.
Habitat Management Plan (2004): Management strategies specific to
forest, shrub, and grassland habitats would be detailed with an
emphasis on forage and cover requirements for migratory avian
species. Management strategies would include maintaining various
successional stages of grassland and forest. This relates specifically
to the objectives, goals, alternatives, purpose, and vision developed
for the Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island Refuges.
Prescribed Burn Plan (2004): This plan would describe the use of
fire as a management tool to enhance forest understory regeneration
and grassland habitat, to remove undesired species such as non-native
invasive plants, and to reduce the fire hazard potential.
Specific locations, methods, and timing will be described in
accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policy and will
adhere to all Federal, State, and local guidelines and restrictions.
Predator Management Plan (2005): This plan would describe the
control of identified problem predators such as gulls, fox, coyote,
feral cats, raccoons, and opossum. The areas of concern are colonial
seabird nesting colonies on Fisherman Island Refuge and migratory
bird habitat on the Eastern Shore of Virginia Refuge. Management
strategies will include both live trapping and lethal removal.
Sign Plan (2006): This plan would detail where signs are needed on
the refuge and what those signs would communicate. While the
refuge currently has some written guidelines for signs, there is no
formal plan.
Chapter 2
  Introduction
  Formulating Alternatives
  Features Common to all Alternatives
  Alternative A: Current Management
  Alternative B: Emphasis On Forest and Shrub-
Dependent Neotropical and Temperate Migrants
(Proposed Action)
  Alternative C: Emphasis on Grassland Temperate and
Neotropical Migrants
  Alternative D: Maintaining Natural Ecosystem
Dynamics, Emphasis on Maintaining and Restoring
Historic Conditions
  Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Further
Consideration
Egret colony.
USFWS photo
Alternatives, Including
the Service’s Proposed
Alternative
2-2 Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island NWRs
Chapter 2: Alternatives
This chapter describes four management alternatives for the
Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island Refuges. Each
alternative addresses all aspects of refuge management, including
habitat management and public use. The first section describes
management actions that are common to all the alternatives and
that the Service plans to implement no matter which alternative is
chosen. The next section lays out the alternatives in the format of
goals, objectives, and strategies. Last is a section that describes an
alternative considered but eliminated from further consideration.
At the end of this chapter you will find a matrix that clearly defines
the differences among the alternatives. The matrix compares and
contrasts the alternatives by their specific management actions
and strategies. Generally, the matrix is a summary of the
alternatives chapter.
Formulating Alternatives
Alternatives are packages of complementary management
strategies and specific actions for achieving the missions of the
National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) and the Service,
the vision and goals of the refuges, and the purposes for which the
refuges were established. They propose different ways of
supporting the goals and responding to key issues, management
concerns, and opportunities identified during the planning process.
The alternatives were guided in large part by different approaches
to habitat management. Alternative A illustrates the current
management of the refuge and provides a baseline for comparing
and contrasting the other alternatives. Alternative B focuses on
managing habitat for neotropical migratory species, which requires
more woody and shrub habitat than the other alternatives.
Alternative C focuses on managing habitat for temperate
migratory species, which requires more grassland habitat. Lastly,
Alternative D focuses on restoring habitat to pre-settlement
conditions. Public use activities associated with each of these
alternatives relate to the focus on habitat management. For
example, in Alternative B, we focus educational and interpretive
programs on neotropical migratory species, and in Alternative C,
the focus is on grassland temperate migrants.
Draft CCP/EA - March 2003 2-3
Doe in field.
USFWS photo
Features Common to all Alternatives
Baseline Inventories
The need for baseline information on National Wildlife Refuges has
become urgent as more and more species are lost to extinction
(Defenders of Wildlife 1998). Without the knowledge of the status,
trends, and responses to management of biological systems,
refuges cannot be effectively managed for the conservation of fish,
wildlife and plants. The development of systematic species and
habitat monitoring are also specific recommendations from the
Fulfilling the Promises document (USFWS 1999a) which lays out a
vision for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Standardized
Region 5 surveys call for conducting annual surveys for breeding
birds, grassland birds, marsh birds, frogs and toads. In addition to
the standardized Region 5 surveys, we will use peer-reviewed
protocol to collect baseline and trend data on vascular plants,
vertebrates, invertebrates, threatened and endangered species,
and trust resources on the Eastern Shore of Virginia (including
Skidmore Island) and Fisherman Island Refuges.
Protecting and Managing Cultural Resources
By law, we must consider the effects of our actions on archeological
and historic resources. Under all the alternatives, we will comply
with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act which
requires that “earth moving” projects (projects that require
breaking ground) be reviewed for archeological resources prior to
commencement. Compliance may require a State Historic
Preservation Records survey, literature survey, or field survey.
In all alternatives, the Service will consult with the Virginia
Department of Historic Resources (Virginia’s State Historic
Preservation Office) in evaluating the National Register eligibility
of buildings on Skidmore Island. Management alternatives for the
buildings will be developed after their eligibility has been
determined. Options include documenting and demolishing them,
moving them for reuse by another organization, or rehabilitation
and adaptive reuse by the refuge or a partner. The refuge will also
initiate a structural engineering review of the Winslow Bunker
(Battery 12) on Eastern Shore of Virginia Refuge, and install a
more effective gate system at that site.
In 2000, the refuge’s museum property intern and Outdoor
Recreation Planner drafted revisions to the refuge’s Scope of
Collection Statement. This document is intended to guide the
refuge in the future acquisition and management of appropriate
museum property. In all alternatives, the refuge will review and
Common To All
2-4 Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island NWRs
Chapter 2: Alternatives
A volunteer bands a tern.
USFWS photo
adopt a version of this draft as its current Scope of Collection
Statement. In addition, the refuge will continue to implement
intern report recommendations about improving the environment
of the Environmental Education Building or creating an
alternative modular storage area for the collection. Other museum
property actions which will be common to all alternatives are:
  Appraise the refuge’s decoys and historic objects.
  Address pest infestation of the refuge’s mounted specimens
and decoys.
  Clean mounted zoological specimens.
  Maintain the refuge’s scientifically valuable wet specimens.
  Prepare and implement housekeeping, pest management,
and environmental monitoring plans.
  Catalog and label remaining uncataloged documents and
historic objects.
  Inspect archaeological artifacts belonging to the refuge but
located at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources.
Wilderness Review
The final refuge planning policy published May 25, 2000 requires
that a wilderness review be conducted concurrently with the CCP
process. However, since this CCP was in preparation prior to the
finalization of the planning policy, a wilderness review has not been
completed. A cursory wilderness inventory of the Eastern Shore
of Virginia Refuge indicates that the 1,850 acres of Fisherman
Island may qualify as a Wilderness Study Area. The island is
roadless, in that no vehicles actually travel along a road on the
surface of the island. Significant bridge abutments, however, occur
on the northern tip of the island. Its effect on the naturalness of
the area would need further analysis. To comply with refuge
planning policy, a wilderness review will be scheduled by the
Regional Office and incorporated by the next major revision of this
Plan.
Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments
Annual Refuge Revenue Sharing payments to Northampton
County, Virginia will continue under each alternative. Future
increases in payments will be commensurate with increases in the
appraised fair market value of refuge lands, new acquisitions of
land, and new Congressional appropriations.
Draft CCP/EA - March 2003 2-5
In all alternatives, the refuge will continue to offer the Workamper
and Internship programs. These programs provide education to
participants as well as much-needed administrative, public use, and
field help to the refuge.
Research
The Service will encourage and support research and management
studies on refuge lands that will improve and strengthen natural
resource management decisions. The refuge manager will
encourage and seek research relative to approved refuge objectives
that clearly improves land management and promotes adaptive
management. Priority research addresses information that will
better manage the Nation’s biological resources and are generally
considered important to: Agencies of the Department of Interior;
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the National Wildlife Refuge
System; and State Fish and Game Agencies, and that address
important management issues or demonstrate techniques for
management of species and/or habitats.
The refuge will also consider research for other purposes which
may not be directly related to refuge-specific objectives, but
contribute to the broader enhancement, protection, use,
preservation and management of native populations of fish, wildlife
and plants, and their natural diversity within the region or flyway.
These proposals must still pass the Service’s compatibility policy.
The refuge will maintain a list of research needs that will be
provided to prospective researchers or organizations upon request.
Refuge support of research directly related to refuge objectives
may take the form of funding, in-kind services such as housing or
use of other facilities, direct staff assistance with the project in the
form of data collection, provision of historical records, conducting
of management treatments, or other assistance as appropriate.
All researchers will be required to submit a detailed research
proposal following Service Policy (FWS Refuge Manual Chapter 4
Section 6). In general, the refuge must be given at least 45 days to
review most proposals before initiation of research, and 60 days to
review proposals that require collection of wildlife. Proposals will
be prioritized and approved based on need, benefit, compatibility,
and funding required. Special Use Permits must also identify a
schedule for annual progress reports on which decisions for
continued research activities will be based. The Regional refuge
biologists, other Service Divisions, and State agencies may be
Common To All
Volunteer and Internship Opportunities
2-6 Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island NWRs
Chapter 2: Alternatives
asked to review and comment on proposals. All researchers will be
required to obtain appropriate State and Federal permits.
Special Use Permit
Under all alternatives, we will continue to issue Special Use
Permits (SUPs) for activities that are not open to the general
public (i.e., research, commercial use of boat ramp site, etc.). SUPs
for research will be issued according to research protocol listed
above.
Communications Tower
There is a 299-foot communications tower located on the Eastern
Shore of Virginia Refuge. This tower was constructed in 1957 and
presently supports in-house radio communications for Verizon and
refuge staff. Verizon has a paging antenna located on this tower.
The lease for this tower, which expires in 2007, was transferred to
the Service with the property. Since the tower does not conform to
current Service guidance on the siting of communications towers, it
will be removed once the lease expires. Verizon has other
communications towers in the immediate vicinity of the refuge.
Maintaining Existing Facilities
Regardless of which alternative is selected, periodic maintenance
and renovation of existing facilities is a critical need to ensure
safety and accessibility for refuge staff and visitors. Included as an
appendix to this document is the 2001 Maintenance Management
System (MMS) database list of backlogged maintenance entries for
the refuge (see Appendix G). Future maintenance needs will vary
among the alternatives relative to proposed new construction.
Personal Watercraft Use
Under all alternatives, the refuge would not allow personal
watercrafts (PWCs) to launch from the Wise Point boat ramp.
PWC refers to a vessel, usually less than 16 feet in length, which
uses an inboard, internal combustion engine powering a water jet
pump as its primary source of propulsion. PWCs include vessels
commonly referred to as jet ski, waverunner, wavejammer, wetjet,
sea-doo, wet bike and surf jet.
PWCs have the potential to cause disturbance to wildlife. The
Wise Point area consists of extensive coastal salt marsh used as
migration, wintering and breeding habitat for black ducks, gadwall,
Canada geese, mallards and blue-winged teal. It also provides
Draft CCP/EA - March 2003 2-7
migration and wintering habitat for a diversity of other waterfowl
species.
PWCs also have a significant potential to conflict with other
visitors’ enjoyment of refuge values. The erratic changes in engine
pitch, the pulsation of sound produced by jumping wakes, and
frequent changes in speed, in addition to the volume of sound,
create a noise that is perceived as both irritating and an intrusion
on the Refuge experience.
Monitoring and Adaptive Management
The Final CCP will cover a 15-year period. Periodic review of the
CCP will be required to ensure that established goals and
objectives are being met and that the plan is being implemented as
scheduled. In many cases, monitoring techniques are built into the
actions and strategies of the alternatives.
We would monitor public use programs by continuing to collect and
compile visitation figures and activity levels. In addition, we would
establish research and monitoring programs to assess the impacts
of public use activities on wildlife and wildlife habitat and to
identify compatible levels of public use activities. We would reduce
these activities if we determine incompatible levels of public use
were occurring.
Collecting baseline data on all wildlife populations and habitats
would update existing records of wildlife species using the refuges,
their habitat requirements, and seasonal use patterns. This data
would also be used to evaluate the effects of public use and habitat
management programs on wildlife populations.
We would continually monitor refuge habitat management
programs for positive and negative impacts on wildlife habitat and
populations, and to determine if these management activities are
helping to meet refuge goals and objectives. Information resulting
from monitoring would allow staff to set more specific and better
management objectives, more rigorously evaluate management
objectives, and ultimately, make better management decisions.
American oystercatcher.
Paul Buckley
Common To All
2-8 Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island NWRs
Chapter 2: Alternatives
ALTERNATIVE A: CURRENT MANAGEMENT
Alternative Concept
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires analysis
of the No Action Alternative, which can be defined or presented as
continued current management activities or as take no action
(literally, do not do anything different from current management).
In this Draft CCP/EA, Alternative A fulfills the first definition; it
continues our current management activities. As mentioned
earlier, Alternative A provides a baseline for comparing and
contrasting the other alternatives.
Management Focus: In the first 12 years since Eastern Shore of
Virginia Refuge was created (1984-1996) refuge management was
focused on removing military buildings and restoring wildlife
habitat. In that time, maintenance staff removed over 100
structures including a water treatment plant, a bowling alley,
single-family dwelling units and other miscellaneous structures.
Habitat management has been focused on providing a variety of
habitats for a variety of birds. These varied habitats consist of
hardwood stands, shrub/scrub habitat and grassland habitat.
Wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities include a 1.5-mile
trail system, a deer hunt program, guided tours on Fisherman
Island Refuge, and environmental education programs.
Rationale behind the management focus: The Eastern Shore of
Virginia and Fisherman Island Refuges are located at the southern
tip of the Delmarva Peninsula, an area that has been identified as
an important migratory bird stopover location along the Atlantic
coast. The refuges provide food and cover habitat for neotropical
and temperate migratory species to assist in their long journeys
north for the summer or south for the winter. Neotropical
migrants largely depend on hardwood stands and shrub/scrub
habitat, while grassland temperate migrants need more grassland
habitat. By providing a diversity of habitat types, we are serving
the needs of a broad range of avifauna. See Maps 2-1 and 2-2 for
existing habitat management and public use areas on the Eastern
Shore of Virginia Refuge. See Map 2-3 for public use areas on
Fisherman Island Refuge.
Draft CCP/EA - March 2003 2-9
Objective A: Hardwood-Dominated Forest
Plant hardwood species in various locations adjacent to existing
forested stands.
Rationale for objective: We plant hardwood trees adjacent to
already-existing hardwood stands to expand contiguous stands of
forest. These contiguous stands of forest provide necessary forage
and cover habitat for neotropical migratory species.
Strategies:
1. Increase hardwood habitat on approximately 20 acres in
Management Unit (MU) 13.
2. Increase hardwood habitat around the refuge residential
area.
Objective B: Forest Understory
Encourage a healthy understory by controlling deer browse and
planting native fruit-bearing shrubs.
Rationale for objective: Many migratory birds depend on native
fruit-bearing shrubs for refueling before continuing their journey
north or south. Native shrubs also increase insect abundance,
another important food source for migratory birds.
Strategies:
1. To minimize the effects of deer browse on the understory,
continue to conduct an annual deer hunt on Eastern Shore
of Virginia Refuge.
2. Provide fruit-bearing shrubs and promote natural
succession.
Objective C: Upland Shrub
Maintain native shrub-dominated cover.
Rationale for objective: Providing shrub/scrub habitat helps fulfill
the forage and cover needs of shrub-dependent birds such as
raptors and some warblers. Native shrubs and forbs offer food
resources such as fruit and nectar.
Strategies:
1. Allow succession in old fields of MUs 4, 8, and 9.
Groundsel.
Charles Philip
Goal1: Increase the availability of forage and cover habitat for neotropical
and temperate migrant birds and migrating monarch butterflies.
Alternative A
2-10 Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island NWRs
Chapter 2: Alternatives
2. Maintain early succession by hydroaxing in MU 5, 6, 7
(e.g. cherry, cedar).
3. Periodically remove loblolly pines as necessary to maintain
shrub habitat.
Objective D: Grassland Management
Maintain existing grasslands on Eastern Shore of Virginia Refuge
(MUs 1, 2, 3, 10, 13, 14) by planting and mowing.
Rationale for objective: Grasslands provide feeding and roosting
habitat for temperate migratory species such as woodcock. Other
grassland bird species depend on grassland habitat for nesting.
Strategies:
1. Periodically remove non-native shrubs in MUs 1 and 2 and
in the residential area to maintain grassland habitat and
promote a healthier ecosystem.
2. For the benefit of grassland birds, small mammals, and
foraging raptors, plant native warm season grasses and
maintain by periodic mowing.
3. Mow old farm fields on a rotational (3-5 year) basis to
maintain grassland and early successional habitat for
migratory, wintering, and breeding grassland bird
species.
4. Mow blocks annually through shrub and grassland habitat
to enhance raptor and woodcock foraging areas.
Objective A: Beach Dynamics
Evaluate the natural dynamics of erosion and accretion of the
beach community on Fisherman Island Refuge and the southern
tip beach.
Rationale for objective: Fisherman Island has dynamic habitats,
as do many coastal islands. Accretion has led to significant
increases in beach and foredune habitat on the north/northeast and
south/southeast portions of the island. Similar increases in salt
marsh habitat have occurred in the northern section of the island.
Monitoring these habitats will help us understand why certain
species use the land, and why others do not.
Strategy:
  Monitor changes in island topography using aerial photos
and research projects.
Beach Erosion.
USFWS photo
Goal 2: Maintain the long-term productivitiy, integrity and function of the
marsh, beach and interdunal communities.
Draft CCP/EA - March 2003 2-11
Objective B: Beach and Dune Habitats
Protect avian nesting (e.g., royal tern, American oystercatcher)
and migrating (e.g., sanderling) habitat on Fisherman Island
Refuge by minimizing disturbance to beach-dependent birds and
other wildlife from humans and predators.
Rationale for objective: Disturbance can lead to nest
abandonment, chick mortality and predation of nests and chicks
during the breeding season (Burger 1991, 1994). Disturbance to
staging areas during migration can lead to declines in shorebird
abundance (Pfister et al., 1992).
Strategies:
1. Continue to close Fisherman Island Refuge to public use
during the nesting season (March 15 through September
30) with the exception of International Migratory Bird
Day. Issue Special Use Permits to qualified researchers.
2. Monitor human and predator disturbance on Fisherman
Island Refuge to minimize adverse effects on avian nesting
productivity and to learn about species behavior.
3. Conduct colonial nesting bird surveys for royal terns,
sandwich terns, American oystercatchers and others.
4. Conduct volunteer beach cleanups on Fisherman Island
and Eastern Shore of Virginia Refuges.
5. Conduct annual Christmas Bird Counts on Fisherman
Island Refuge habitats.
Objective C: Threatened and Endangered Species
Protect Federal listed speciesthat occur or may occur on both
refuges.
Rationale for objective: The Northeastern beach tiger beetle is a
Federal listed species found on the southern tip beach on the
Eastern Shore of Virginia Refuge. It is the only listed species
suspected to breed on either of the refuges. The Federal listed
piping plover was last recorded on the Fisherman Island Refuge in
1992, when one nest was documented. All federal agencies are
required under the Endangered Species Act to use their
authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of
endangered and threatened species.
Strategies:
1. Continue to close the southern tip beach on the Eastern
Shore of Virginia to public use to protect Northeastern
beach tiger beetle habitat.
Alternative A
2-12 Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island NWRs
Chapter 2: Alternatives
2. Periodically monitor for piping plover activity on
Fisherman Island Refuge.
3. Periodically survey the vegetation on Fisherman Island
Refuge for endangered plants.
Objective D: Tidally-Influenced Salt Marsh
Monitor and, where possible, enhance the quality and natural
function of tidally-influenced salt marsh on both refuges for marsh-dependent
birds (e.g., clapper rail, seaside sparrow and sharp-tailed
sparrow) and other avian species (e.g., herons, egrets and
ibis).
Rationale for objective: Marshes provide important feeding
habitat for many birds on both refuges. About 50 percent of
Fisherman Island is covered in cordgrass-dominated salt marsh,
important habitat for rails and many waterfowl species.
Strategy:
  Periodically spray approved herbicide on non-native
phragmites by aerial application on marsh in and adjacent
to refuge property.
Objective A: Protect Migratory Bird Stopover Habitat through Acquisition
Protect land within the refuge’s existing acquisition boundary by
obtaining fee title.
Rationale for objective: Protecting more land on the eastern shore
of Virginia will provide more wildlife habitat for a variety of
species. Furthermore, protecting more land around existing
refuge land will create larger blocks of wildlife habitat which are
important for many species which are sensitive to human
disturbance.
Strategies:
1. Continue to work with willing landowners to acquire 310
acres within our approved acquisition boundary.
2. At the time of acquisition, the refuge manager will
evaluate existing public uses and determine whether
they are compatible. If no public uses have been
established, new tracts remain closed to public use until a
formal compatibility determination has been completed.
Goal 3: Actively participate in the conservation of healthy hardwood,
understory, and grassland habitat for neotropical and temperate migratory
birds during future development throughout Northampton County.
Draft CCP/EA - March 2003 2-13
Objective B: Protect Migratory Bird Stopover Habitat through Partnering
Partner with public and private agencies to ensure that future
development does not adversely impact the natural resources of
Northampton County.
Rationale for objective: By working with partners, we potentially
increase opportunities for land protection on the eastern shore.
Furthermore, we play a role in helping to prioritize land protection
strategies for Northampton County.
Strategies:
1. Participate in board meetings and public discussions
regarding Northampton County (County) planning issues
such as land zoning, reducing the toll on the Chesapeake
Bay Bridge-Tunnel, communications tower ordinance and
other pertinent issues.
2. Work cooperatively on Geographic Information Systems
(GIS) analysis of the lower eastern shore with the County,
The Nature Conservancy, the State, and Service partners
to help identify unprotected lands for future easements or
purchase.
3. Facilitate private land protection projects on the eastern
shore of Virginia with the Service and the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to protect
suitable wildlife habitat.
4. Work with the Southern Tip Partners (a group comprised of
federal, State, local, non-governmental agencies, and
private citizens) to prioritize and identify lands for potential
acquisition and to coordinate funding efforts.
Objective A: Hunting Opportunities
Provide a high-quality, safe deer hunting program and promote
special hunt opportunities on Eastern Shore of Virginia Refuge.
Rationale for objective: Providing wildlife-dependent recreational
opportunities, like hunting, helps foster an appreciation for wildlife.
Although many of the lands on the eastern shore are hunted, most
are private lands. By opening the refuge to hunting, we provide
public hunting opportunities.
Photo Blind.
USFWS photo
Alternative A
Goal 4: Provide wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities and
community outreach with an emphasis on educating the public about the
critical role the Delmarva Peninsula serves for neotropical and temperate
migratory birds and migrating monarch butterflies.
2-14 Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island NWRs
Chapter 2: Alternatives
Strategies:
1. Provide an annual deer hunt program for archery and
shotgun in designated zones (see Map 2-3) of the Eastern
Shore of Virginia Refuge during specific days of the fall and
winter (23 hunters per day, 19 days total).
2. Promote hunting on the Eastern Shore of Virginia through
participation in the annual National Hunting and Fishing
Day.
Objective B: Boating and Fishing Access
Provide access to the County and Wise Point boat ramps for deep
water recreational and commercial fishing.
Rationale for objective: The refuge owns the Wise Point boat
ramp, the only public seaside boat ramp on the southern 10 miles of
the Delmarva Peninsula that provides deep water access. The boat
ramp is valuable to the local community for economic, cultural and
recreational use. Many commercial watermen have depended on
the boat ramp for access to important clamming, crabbing and
fishing grounds. The boat ramp has been open to recreational
anglers year-round, though recreational use declines dramatically
in the winter (January through March).
Strategies:
1. Commercial and recreational anglers will continue to
have access to the Wise Point boat ramp under the same
rules and regulations that applied when the boat ramp was
owned by the Wise Point Corporation.
3. Continue to support a no-wake zone in the Virginia Inside
Passage adjacent to the tidal marshes near the boat ramp
to minimize wildlife disturbance and erosion.
4. Do not allow personal watercrafts (PWCs) to launch from
the boat ramp.
5. Promote fishing on the eastern shore of Virginia by
participating in National Hunting and Fishing Day.
Objective C: Wildlife Observation and Photography
Provide opportunities for visitors to view and photograph wildlife
and their habitats on the Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman
Island Refuges.
Rationale for objective: Providing opportunities for wildlife
observation and photography helps foster an appreciation for
wildlife and wildlife habitat.
Draft CCP/EA - March 2003 2-15
Strategies:
1. Continue to offer guided tours of Fisherman Island
Refuge on weekends from October 1 through March 15.
2. Maintain the photo blind on Eastern Shore of Virginia
Refuge.
3. Continue to provide an observation window in the Visitor
Center overlooking a freshwater pond. Remove invasive
cattail in the pond annually to enhance viewing from the
observation window.
4. Maintain two overlooks along 1.5 miles of trails on the
Eastern Shore of Virginia Refuge.
5. Maintain the butterfly garden adjacent to the Visitor’s
Center with native nectar-producing shrubs and forbs to
provide food sources for butterflies and wildlife
observation for visitors.
Objective D: Environmental Education
Provide educational programs to visitors on the importance of the
refuge to migratory species and their habitats.
Rationale for objective: Providing school children and teachers
with environmental education opportunities increases
understanding and support for the relationship between species
and their habitats.
Strategies:
1. Continue to annually revise, schedule, cost share, and
conduct environmental education (EE) programs for
Northampton County elementary school children
(kindergarten through fifth-grade) and provide programs
for other schools when possible.
2. Continue to conduct teacher workshops with feedback
questionnaires to help refine programs to teachers’ needs.
3. Continue to conduct periodic EE programs at various
schools around Northampton County.
4. Continue to offer the Junior Refuge Manager Program to
youth groups and interested youth, throughout the year.
5. Continue to participate annually in the regional high school
Envirothon.
6. Continue to conduct a seasonal woodcock educational
program for two high schools in Virginia when possible.
Objective E: Interpretation
Provide opportunities for refuge visitors to view and photograph
migratory birds and migrating monarch butterflies along trails and
existing roads during the fall migration.
Alternative A
2-16 Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island NWRs
Chapter 2: Alternatives
Rationale for objective: Providing the public with interpretive
information increases public appreciation and support for habitat
protection efforts on the southern tip of the Delmarva Peninsula.
Strategies:
1. Continue to provide general brochure and bird checklist.
2. Continue to offer visitors a modern, interactive, and
educational Visitor’s Center with video presentations,
various exhibits, talks, and programs to enhance their
Refuge experience.
3. Continue to provide 1.5 miles of trails with interpretive
signs and kiosks.
4. Continue to conduct special tours and programs on
request (e.g. Scouts, birding clubs, garden clubs).
5. For off-refuge events, continue to use tabletop exhibits
with general information about the refuges and bird
migration.
6. Continue to coordinate with the Chesapeake Bay Bridge
Tunnel (Bridge-Tunnel) Authority to display interpretive
material on the bridge. Publicizing interpretive
opportunities on the Bridge-Tunnel has the potential to
greatly expand visitation.
Objective A: Encourage Responsible Nature-Based Tourism
Cooperate with local organizations to promote responsible, nature-based
tourism.
Rationale for objective: Virginia’s eastern shore has the potential
to offer many recreational opportunities. The Service can provide
expertise to ensure these opportunities are consistent with
protecting wildlife and wildlife habitat whenever possible.
Strategies:
1. Continue to co-sponsor and participate in local festivals
and events to help promote nature-based tourism on the
lower Eastern Shore. Major events include Onancock
Haborfest, National Hunting and Fishing Day, Earth Day,
Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel Walk/Bike Day, Citizen’s
for a Better Eastern Shore Biking Day, Eastern Shore
Birding Festival, International Migratory Bird Day and
Goal 5: Integrate the refuges into the larger community of the eastern shore
and promote awareness of the unique value of the lower Delmarva Peninsula
to neotropical and temperate migratory birds and migrating monarch
butterflies.
Draft CCP/EA - March 2003 2-17
National Wildlife Refuge Week.
2. Continue cooperative efforts with conservation groups to
promote nature-based tourism in the area by, for example,
helping to develop visitor guides such as the Delmarva
Birding Guide and the Audubon Guide for Refuges.
3. Continue to educate tour guides on refuge regulations and
the fragility of Fisherman Island Refuge’s habitats and
nesting colonies, especially as kayaking increases in
popularity on the lower Delmarva Peninsula.
Objective B: Increase Refuge Recognition and Support
Coordinate with local partners to participate in community events,
improve outreach and provide input on local environmental issues.
Rationale for objective: We can reach a broader range of people by
working with partners to help spread a conservation message
throughout the local community. We also improve our
relationships with our conservation partners.
Strategies:
1. Continue to offer outreach programs several times a year
to civic groups such as local Garden Clubs, senior citizen
groups, and Rotary Club.
2. Continue to serve on the board of directors for the Coastal
Virginia Wildlife Observatory (CVWO), a non-profit
environmental organization that contributes to migratory
bird and butterfly research conducted on the lower
eastern shore. The refuge offers year-round housing to
help off set costs for the organization.
3. Maintain cooperative planning efforts with Kiptopeke State
Park, resulting in contributions to our respective long-term
management plans.
4. Continue to share refuge facilities (e.g., conference
building) with Federal, State, and local agencies such as
the Cape Charles Town Council, Kiptopeke State Park,
Natural Resource Conservation Service, and the County
Sheriff’s Department to promote interagency coordination.
5. Maintain the refuge web site to promote interest in the
refuge. Information for visitors, volunteers, interns, and
Workampers is available with such listings as a special
event calendar, featured species of the month, rare
sightings, historical information, and more.
Alternative A
2-18 Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island NWRs
Chapter 2: Alternatives
Objective A: Contaminants
Determine the extent of contamination on existing refuge lands
known or suspected to be contaminated.
Rationale for objective: Both refuges are located on former
military land. Oftentimes, military lands contain a number of
contaminated areas. Our objective so far has been to identify those
areas on the refuge that are contaminated.
Strategies:
1. Interview former military personnel and long-term staff to
identify sites of possible contamination.
2. Conduct contaminant surveys on existing refuge
properties and on properties identified for acquisition.
3. Remove underground storage tanks and inspect above-ground
storage tanks. Follow precautionary measures
such as spill prevention and adequate containment.
4. Correctly store and/or dispose of hazardous materials
such as flammables and pesticides. Inspect structures for
asbestos.
Objective B: Firearms Range
While operating the firearms range in the best interest of the
refuge and law enforcement user groups, work with partners to
relocate the range.
Rationale for objective: The firearms range is owned by
Northampton County but is managed and maintained by refuge
staff. The range is located adjacent to the refuge, and close to the
environmental education building. We schedule users so as not to
conflict with environmental education programs. We have been
working with the County to find an alternative site for the range
partly because gunshot noise can disturb people and wildlife and
partly because the range contains contaminants that may be
adversly affecting our trust resources. A new range would have
provisions for abating contaminants.
Strategies:
1. Continue to work with partners (e.g., Northampton
County, local law enforcement agencies) to find an
alternate site for the firearms range (off-refuge) in a less
environmentally sensitive location. Consider acquiring the
Goal 6: Enhance and restore the quality of the soils, waters, and other
abiotic components of the refuge landscape.
Draft CCP/EA - March 2003 2-19
land now occupied by the firearms range.
2. Continue to administer and maintain the firearms range.
Schedule usage so as not to conflict with environmental
education programs.
3. Continue to collect and recycle spent brass casings.
Objective C: Contingency Planning for Oil and Hazardous Material Spills
Refuge staff will be prepared to respond to any oil or hazardous
material spills on water or on land that threaten the Eastern Shore
of Virginia or Fisherman Island Refuges.
Rationale for objective: The Eastern Shore of Virginia and
Fisherman Island Refuges are located in a vulnerable place,
bordered by the Atlantic Ocean on one side and the Chesapeake
Bay on the other. Large ships and barges pass by the refuges
daily. Also, Route 13, which runs through Fisherman Island and
adjacent to the Eastern Shore of Virginia refuge, is a major
trucking route. For these reasons, it is important the refuges have
an action plan for dealing with a spill in the water or on land.
Strategy:
  Annually update spill and pollution prevention plans.
Objective D: Remove Artificial Structures
Promote a more natural appearance to refuge landscapes and
increase the amount of acreage available as wildlife habitat by
removing unnecessary artificial structures that may obstruct
views, occupy space, and constitute a direct hazard to wildlife.
Rationale for the Objective: Artificial structures are often
considered merely aesthetic or visual problems. There are,
however, many ecological reasons for their removal.
Communications towers are known hazards to birds. Unoccupied
buildings become shelters for rats and raccoons and other
predators. Roadways create ecological edge communities that
concentrate a diversity of plant species, many of which are
invasive. Artificial impoundments create aquatic systems that
alter natural biodiversity. Furthermore, the cumulative space
occupied by such structures is considerable, making it unavailable
as wildlife habitat.
Strategy:
  Verizon Virginia, Inc. will remove the communications
tower once the lease expires in 2007.
Alternative A
Communications tower.
Susan Rice
2-20 Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island NWRs
Chapter 2: Alternatives
Map 2-1
Draft CCP/EA - March 2003 2-21
Map 2-2
Alternative A
2-22 Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island NWRs
Chapter 2: Alternatives
Map 2-3
Draft CCP/EA - March 2003 2-23
ALTERNATIVE B: EMPHASIS ON FOREST AND SHRUB-DEPENDENT
NEOTROPICAL AND TEMPERATE MIGRANTS
Alternative Concept
Management Focus: Under this alternative the refuge would
focus its management efforts on protecting, restoring, and
enhancing habitat for forest and shrub-dependent neotropical and
temperate migratory birds, while promoting compatible wildlife-dependent
recreational opportunities in support of these efforts.
Rationale behind the management focus: The lower Delmarva
Peninsula is hemispherically important to migrating songbirds.
The narrowing peninsula provides a geographic bottleneck for over
a hundred southward migrating avian species concentrating
millions of birds into this small area. Adequate cover and food
along the migratory route are essential for the long-term viability
of these species. Unfortunately, wildlife habitat on the peninsula is
becoming fragmented with increased waterfront development and
clearing of forest and shrub habitat, threatening the migration
corridor. Virginia, Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey have
experienced up to 60 percent declines in neotropical songbird
numbers in recent history (Mabey et al., 1993). In light of these
population declines and habitat losses, increased emphasis is
needed to protect, restore, and enhance the lower Delmarva’s
critically located habitats with a focus on conserving hardwood
forests and fruit-producing shrubs for these avian migrants.
See Maps 2-4 and 2-5 for proposed habitat management and public
use strategies on the Eastern Shore of Virginia Refuge. See Map 2-
6 for proposed public use strategies on Fisherman Island Refuge.
Objective A: Hardwood-Dominated Forest
To provide additional sources of high-quality forage for neotropical
and temperate migrants, increase the amount of contiguous
hardwood habitat (oaks, hickory, maples, and sweet gum) on the
Eastern Shore of Virginia Refuge by converting existing open
grassland habitat adjacent to forested stands.
Rationale for the Objective: Hardwood-dominated forests have a
high food value for neotropical and temperate migrants because of
the diverse understory associated with these habitats (Watts and
Mabey, 1994).
GOAL 1: Increase the availability of forage and cover habitat for neotropical
and temperate migrant birds and migrating monarch butterflies.
Alternative B
2-24 Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island NWRs
Chapter 2: Alternatives
Strategies: (Strategies are listed in five-year increments following
the plan’s approval)
1-5 years:
1. Determine appropriate hardwood management techniques
including the number and variety of trees to be planted,
planting location and schedule, and evaluation of deer
impacts. Include proposed techniques in the habitat
management plan.
2. Establish 10 x 10-meter plots to test treatment regimes for
eliminating Japanese honeysuckle and kudzu encroaching
on existing hardwood stands.
3. Plant two acres of mixed hardwoods in MU 6 as specified in
the habitat management plan (may include deer exclosure
fencing).
6-10 years:
4. Plant 15 acres of mixed hardwoods in MU 8 as specified in
the habitat management plan.
5. Convert two acres of grassland to mixed hardwoods and
shrubs in the refuge housing area (areas between individual
houses) through natural succession and plantings.
6. Develop an agreement with the Chesapeake Bay Bridge
Tunnel (Bridge-Tunnel) Authority and Sunset Beach Resort
to plant hardwoods on their property in areas contiguous to
forested stands.
11-15 years:
7. Plant 10 acres of mixed hardwoods within the old railroad
right-of-way as specified in the habitat management plan.
Objective B: Forest Understory
Increase the density and abundance of the forest understory in
closed canopy pine stands (i.e., stands 20-80 years old) to provide
forage for frugivorous and insectivorous neotropical and temperate
migrants.
Rationale for the Objective: Establishing native shrubs and vines
in forest openings increases fruit and insect abundance, thereby
benefitting migratory birds (Blake and Hoppes, 1986). We would
create an experimental plot to determine the specific management
practices necessary to create optimum fruit and insect abundance
for birds throughout the migration and winter seasons.
In addition to Alternative A:
Draft CCP/EA - March 2003 2-25
1-5 years:
1. Thin loblolly pine on Wise Point. To thin, we would use a
chain saw on a 0.25-acre test plot within the 30 acres of
forest at Wise Point. Only small sections would be thinned
as the majority of the existing pines on Wise Point are of
low vigor and would not respond to thinning and are likely
to succumb to salt intrusion, sensescence, and pine beetle
infestation (Mallett 2001). Subsequent adjustments to
thinning would be based on test plot results.
2. Leave standing dead trees (>15.2 cm diameter-breast-height,
or dbh) within the 30-acre forest at Wise Point to
increase the availability of forage (insects) for avian
migrants (e.g., black-and-white warblers, ruby-crowned
kinglets). In addition, snags would fulfill avian cavity nest
site size requirements of species occurring on the refuge.
3. Develop a 15-year monitoring plan that outlines protocols
for monitoring fruit production of forbs (pokeweed), shrubs
and saplings (black cherry, viburnum) and vines
(greenbrier, Virginia creeper, poison ivy). The monitoring
plan would outline pre- and post-management monitoring
to measure understory response to thinning.
4. Monitor the effects of deer on browse species and forage
availability for neotropical migrants through the use of
exclosures and control plots on both refuges.
5. Burn about 35 acres of loblolly pine stands at Wise Point to
encourage a productive understory and kill pine seedlings.
6-10 years:
6. Manage loblolly pine stands that are approaching closed
canopy conditions by removing trees as indicated above
under Strategies 1-3.
7. Continue monitoring for fruit production and understory
response to thinning. Based on monitoring results, manage
stands where the canopy becomes closed.
11-15 years:
8. Continue monitoring understory growth. Based on
monitoring results, manage stands where the canopy
becomes closed.
Objective C: Upland Shrub
Maintain and increase native shrub-dominated cover (e.g.,
bayberry, chokeberry, sumac, viburnum) and nectar-producing
forbs (e.g., pokeweed, goldenrod) on the existing mid-successional
management units (MU 2-6, 6A, 7, 9-11, 14 and Wise Point tip) to
increase the availability of feeding and resting habitat for shrub-
Loblolly pine.
Charles Philip.
Alternative B
2-26 Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island NWRs
Chapter 2: Alternatives
dependent migratory birds, including raptors, that rely on these
resources.
Rationale for the Objective: Fruiting shrubs provide a fuel source
for numerous fall migratory birds that migrate through the lower
Delmarva Peninsula during their southern migration. Struthers et
al. (2000) observed fall migrants using shrub habitats more than
wooded sites; as trees encroached and shaded fruit-bearing shrubs,
bird use declined. In addition, because abundant numbers of fall
migrating raptors hunt these shrub habitats, they also provide an
indirect food source. Increased nectar availability would also
benefit migrating monarch butterflies.
1-5 years:
1. Establish experimental plots to control invasive plants (e.g.,
Japanese honeysuckle, fennel and kudzu) and evaluate the
vegetative response to various treatment methods (e.g.,
mowing, prescribed burning, application of herbicides)
prior to their widespread use. Monitor existing conditions
prior to treatment.
2. Remove, using a chain saw or hydroaxe, approximately
seven acres of loblolly pine adjacent to and encroaching on
wax myrtle shrub habitat on the southern tip of Wise Point.
3. Remove, using a chain saw or hydroaxe, loblolly pine (<
25.4 cm dbh) from MUs 4, 5, 6, 6A, 7 and 10, leaving some
scattered pines to provide winter and roosting cover.
4. While cutting loblolly pine in 6A, cut autumn olive shrubs
and treat stumps with an approved herbicide to prohibit
invasion once the area has been opened.
5. Allow grasslands in MUs 9, 10 and 11 to convert to shrub
through natural succession.
6. Monitor the effects of deer on browse species and forage
availability for neotropical migrants through the use of
exclosures and control plots.
7. Assess breeding use by landbirds with Partners in Flight
(PIF) priority (e.g., prairie warbler, field sparrow) using
maritime shrub thickets.
6-10 years:
8. Burn cut areas on Wise Point (Strategy 2) and MUs 4, 5, 6,
6A, 7 and 10 (Strategy 3) to maintain newly created shrub
habitats.
9. Monitor fruit production of forbs (pokeweed), saplings and
shrubs (black cherry, bayberry, wax myrtle) and vines
(greenbrier, Virginia creeper, poison ivy) using the same
protocol developed in the fruit monitoring plan for forest
understory (Objective B, Strategy 3).
10. Cut Management Units when pines and larger hardwoods
Draft CCP/EA - March 2003 2-27
(dbh > 15.2 cm [Denmon 1998]) invade. Cut fields in 14-
acre rotational blocks (Berdeen and Krementz, 1998) so
fruiting shrub habitat is always available. Conduct
monitoring on two plots: one each in MUs 5 and 7 to
ascertain senescence and determine cutting schedule.
11. Develop an agreement with the Bridge-Tunnel Authority to
manage pines on their property in the Wise Point area that
are encroaching on wax myrtle shrub habitat.
11-15 years:
12. Remove regenerating loblolly pine, using a bushhog or
hydroaxe, to facilitate shrub growth in MU 10.
13. Continue to monitor and control invasives and suppress
loblolly pine invasion on MUs 2-6, 6A, 7, 9-11, 14 and Wise
Point tip.
Objective D: Grasslands
Establish a large contiguous block (78 acres) of native warm season
grasses in MUs 1 and 13 to provide food sources, perches and
escape cover for grassland-dependent temperate and neotropical
migratory birds. Vegetative cover would consist of 65-90 percent
warm season grasses (e.g., little bluestem, Indian grass), 10-35
percent forbs (e.g., goldenrod, pokeweed) and 10-20 percent
scattered native shrubs (e.g., groundsel, bayberry).
Rationale for the Objective: Size is a required element of breeding
habitat for many grassland bird species (Vickery et al. 1994).
While few studies exist, size is also believed to play a role for
migrating and wintering grassland-dependent birds (Watts 2000).
Many species of grassland birds are declining throughout their
range due to habitat loss (Askins 1993); therefore, the refuge seeks
to provide migrating and wintering grassland bird habitat where
feasible. Grassland management would only occur where large
contiguous grassland habitat can be established on the refuge
without depleting existing shrub or forested habitat.
1-5 years:
1. Maintain existing grasslands (over the life of the plan)
using a variety of techniques including mowing, prescribed
burning, and discing.
2. Establish experimental plots in MU 1 to control invasive
plants and evaluate the vegetative response to various
treatment methods (e.g., mowing, discing, application of
herbicides) prior to their widespread use. Monitor existing
conditions prior to treatment.
3. Remove hedgerows and autumn olive between MUs 1 and
13.
Field habitat.
Charles Philip
Alternative B
2-28 Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island NWRs
Chapter 2: Alternatives
6-10 years:
4. Eradicate 20 percent of the existing Japanese honeysuckle
population per year over a five-year period based on the
results of Strategy 2 using invasive control measures such
as mowing and the application of herbicides.
5. Eliminate 10 percent of the existing fennel population per
year over a 10-year period using appropriate control
techniques (e.g., deep discing, plowing, herbicides) based on
the results of Strategy 2.
6. Eliminate the feral cat population on the Eastern Shore of
Virginia Refuge. Refuge staff would live trap animals and
transfer them to a shelter for adoption. Refuge staff would
continue to manage the feral cat population as needed.
11-15 years:
7. Continue to monitor and control invasives and manage for
grasslands on MU 1 and 13.
Objective A: Beach Dynamics
Maintain the natural dynamics of erosion and accretion of the
beach community on Fisherman Island Refuge by allowing these
coastal areas to grow and erode with passing storms and water
currents.
Rationale for the Objective: Fisherman Island is a unique example
of an undisturbed, mid-Atlantic coastal barrier island. Like many
coastal islands, it consists of several dynamic habitats, such as
beach, dune and tidally-influenced salt marsh. Accretion has led to
significant increases in beach and foredune habitat on the north/
northeast and south/southeast portions of the island. There have
been similar increases in salt marsh habitat in the northern section
of the island. Monitoring these habitats will help us understand
why certain species use the island, and why others do not.
In addition to Alternative A:
1-15 years:
1. Monitor sand accretion and erosion on Fisherman Island at
least every two years using accepted protocols.
2. Evaluate vegetation in royal tern nesting area; investigate
the need to remove vegetation to enhance tern nesting
habitat and deter nesting gulls.
GOAL 2: Maintain the long-term productivity, integrity and function of the
marsh, beach and interdunal communities.
Draft CCP/EA - March 2003 2-29
Objective B: Beach and Dune Habitats
Enhance the quality of nesting (e.g., royal tern, American
oystercatcher) and migrating (e.g., sanderling) habitat on
Fisherman Island Refuge by minimizing disturbance to beach-dependent
birds and other wildlife from humans and predators.
Rationale for the Objective: Disturbance can lead to nest
abandonment, chick mortality and predation of nests and chicks
during the breeding season (Burger 1991, 1994). Disturbance to
staging areas during migration can lead to declines in shorebird
abundance (Pfister et al., 1992).
In addition to Alternative A:
1-15 years:
Minimize Human Disturbances
1. Focus interpretive and educational tours on Fisherman
Island Refuge along the entrance road and within a quarter
of a mile of where the entrance road reaches the beach.
2. Complete weekly avian surveys from Feb. 1 to Oct. 31 to
assess when target birds (e.g., American oystercatchers,
royal terns) are in the area. Complete bimonthly surveys
the remainder of the year.
3. Update flora survey of Fisherman Island Refuge.
4. Use exclosures and control plots to determine if there are
significant deer browse impacts on the refuge.
5. Install closure signs on Fisherman Island Refuge to inform
boaters the island is closed to the public. A Sign Plan
would contain details of where the signs would be placed
and what they would say.
6. Hire a law enforcement officer to educate the public about
the sensitive nature of barrier islands and nesting bird
colonies and to enforce area closures, particularly during
the nesting season.
Minimize Predator Disturbance
7. Establish track stations every two years near colonial
nesting bird sites to monitor for mammalian predator
activity; continue quarterly predator transect surveys on
Fisherman Island beaches and marshes.
8. Monitor colonial nesting bird sites each nesting season for
the presence of mammalian predators, avian losses, and
predator/prey relationships.
9. Determine and evaluate productivity for the following
Ringbilled gull.
James Cameron
Alternative B
2-30 Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island NWRs
Chapter 2: Alternatives
species: brown pelican, royal tern, American oystercatcher,
laughing gull, herring gull, and great black-backed gull.
10. Implement a zero tolerance policy for red fox, coyote and
feral cats by immediately removing these predators using
appropriate humane methods such as padded leg-hold traps
and/or lethal means.
11. Implement gull control measures if colonial nesting or
beach nesting bird numbers are in decline because of
predation, competition or displacement by gulls. We would
assess and implement the use of non-lethal control
methods, such as harrassment, before implementing lethal
methods, such as destroying nests/eggs, addling eggs or
killing adults.
Objective C: Threatened and Endangered Species
Protect and maintain beach habitat on the refuges in an
unimpaired condition for Federal listed species, and other species
and habitats of special concern.
Rationale for objective: Three listed species -- Northeastern beach
tiger beetle, piping plover and seabeach amaranth -- either occur
or historically have occured on the refuges. When State recovery
plans become available, we would use them whenever practical to
manage State listed species found on the refuges.
Northeastern beach tiger beetle
The Northeastern beach tiger beetle is a Federal listed species
found on the southern tip beach of the Eastern Shore of Virginia
Refuge. It is the only listed species suspected to reside on either
of the refuges. The Sunset Beach Resort owns property abuting
the southern tip beach. Cooperation with resort owners is
necessary for the beetles’ protection.
1-5 years:
1. Monitor beach width annually on the southern tip beach to
determine the beach nesting habitat available for tiger
beetles.
2. Survey adult tiger beetles between the end of June and the
beginning of July to determine breeding population status
(Knisley 2001).
3. Conduct weekly adult tiger beetle surveys for 3-5 years in
the summertime, beginning in June, to look at fluctuations
in populations.
4. Assess trespassing (e.g., number of people and type of
activity) on the southern tip beach.
Draft CCP/EA - March 2003 2-31
5. Coordinate with Sunset Beach Resort to protect the tiger
beetle population on the refuge and to educate the public
about tiger beetle life history requirements.
6. Install interpretive signs on the southern tip beach to
provide information about tiger beetles.
6-10 years:
7. Using genetic tests, determine which subspecies of
Northeastern beach tiger beetle exist on the southern tip
beach.
8. Depending on results from adult tiger beetle surveys,
conduct tiger beetle l