Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              Eastern Neck
National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment
September 2009
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting,
and enhancing fi sh, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefi t of the American people.
The Service manages the 150-million acre National Wildlife Refuge System comprised of more than 550
national wildlife refuges and thousands of waterfowl production areas. It also operates 70 national fi sh
hatcheries and 81 ecological services fi eld stations. The agency enforces Federal wildlife laws, manages
migratory bird populations, restores nationally signifi cant fi sheries, 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 Assistance Program which distributes hundreds
of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fi shing 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 staffi ng increases, operational
and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
This blue goose, designed by J.N.
“Ding” Darling, has become the
symbol of the National Wildlife
Refuge System.
i
Eastern Neck National
Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment
September 2009
Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge will sustain diverse and healthy tidal
marsh, aquatic and uplands habitats so the refuge supports robust populations
of Federal trust species and remains an essential link in the network of
conserved lands in the Chesapeake Bay. Our successes will be supported by the
strong partnerships we develop with other Federal agencies, State agencies,
conservation organizations, land managers, and neighboring communities.
Working with those partners will provide the opportunity to showcase and
demonstrate a science-based, adaptive management approach, with emphasis on
the protection and restoration of shoreline and tidal marsh.
We will continue to reward all who visit with an opportunity to immerse
themselves in the natural sights and sounds of the Chesapeake Bay. The thrill
of observing more than 100,000 migrating and wintering waterfowl moving in
and out of the refuge each year, including the rare tundra swan, is an experience
that forms a lasting impression about the wonders of nature. Visitors will also be
delighted by the refuge’s healthy populations of bald eagles and ospreys as they
dive for fish and attend to their young. They will also enjoy the opportunity to
observe the phenomenon of over 100 species of birds migrating through each fall.
We will enhance these and other refuge experiences by providing exceptional
interpretive and visitor programs about the Chesapeake Bay and its rich
diversity of natural and cultural resources.
We hope residents of neighboring communities on the Delmarva Peninsula will
value the refuge for enhancing their quality of life. Within the National Wildlife
Refuge System, the refuge will be treasured for conserving the Chesapeake
Bay’s Federal trust resources and providing inspirational outdoor experiences for
present and future generations of Americans.
Refuge Vision
Statement
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
iii
Eastern Neck National
Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment
September 2009
Type of Action: Administrative — Development of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
Location: Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge
Rock Hall, MD
Administrative
Headquarters:
Chesapeake Marshlands National Wildlife Refuge Complex located on
Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge
Cambridge, MD
Responsible Official: Marvin Moriarty, Regional Director, Region 5, Northeast
For Further Information: Nancy McGarigal, Natural Resource Planner
Northeast Regional Office
300 Westgate Center Drive
Hadley, MA 01035
(413) 253-8562
northeastplanning@fws.gov
This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes three
alternatives for managing the 2,286 acre Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge over the next 15 years. This
document also contains six appendixes that provide additional information supporting our analysis. Following
is a brief overview of each alternative:
Alternative A: This alternative is referred to as our “No Action” or “Current Management” alternative, as
required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under this alternative, no major changes to our
biological, public use or administrative management practices would occur.
Alternative B: This is the Service’s preferred alternative. It represents the objectives and strategies
recommended by the planning team for best achieving the refuge’s purposes, vision and goals and responding
to public issues. Under this alternative, we focus on increased protection of the Eastern Neck Refuge
shoreline and tidal marsh, while also enhancing the current diversity of our upland habitats. Our current
public use program would be improved, but not signifi cantly expanded.
Alternative C: This alternative also prioritizes protection of the refuge shoreline and tidal marsh, but would
focus upland habitat management on increasing the refuge’s forest. Our current public use program would be
improved, with some expansions planned.
Summary
Table of Contents
Table of Contents v
Chapters
Refuge Vision Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Chapter 1 Introduction and Purpose of and Need For Action
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
The Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3
Regional Context and Project Analysis Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5
The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning . . . . . 1-6
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-13
Eastern Neck Refuge Management Profile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-24
Refuge Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-26
Refuge Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-27
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-29
Development of Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-31
Chapter 2 Affected Environment
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
International and National Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
Regional Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
Eastern Neck Refuge Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15
Chapter 3 Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
Formulating Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
Actions Common to All of the Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
Alternative A. Current Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21
Alternative B. Emphasis on Tidal Wetlands and Waterfowl (Service-preferred
Alternative) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39
Alternative C. Emphasis on Tidal Wetlands and Forest Habitat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-91
Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-101
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
Regional Scale Impacts: Air Quality Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
Regional Scale Impacts: Water Quality and Aquatic Biota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7
Regional Scale Impacts: Socioeconomic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-15
Refuge-Specific Impacts: Shoreline Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-19
Refuge-Specific Impacts: Tidal Marsh Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20
Refuge-Specific Impacts: Soils Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22
Refuge-Specific Impacts: Forest Habitat Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-30
Refuge-Specific Impacts: Grassland Habitat Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-33
Refuge-Specific Impacts: Waterfowl Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-34
Refuge-Specific Impacts: Shorebird, Marsh Bird and Wading Bird Impact . . . . . . . 4-38
Refuge-Specific Impacts: Impacts to Songbirds, Raptors, and Other Birds of
Conservation Concern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-40
Refuge-Specific Impacts: Impacts to Other Native Wildlife including Game Species . 4-45
Refuge-Specific Impacts: Invertebrate Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-48
Refuge-Specific Impacts: Impacts to Biological Diversity, Biological Integrity, and
Environmental Health (BIDEH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-50
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
vi
Appendixes
Appendix A Species of Conservation Concern at Eastern Neck Refuge
Species of Conservation Concern at Eastern Neck Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
Appendix B Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations
Chapters (cont.)
Refuge-Specific Impacts: Impacts to Archaeological and Historic Resources . . . . . 4-54
Refuge-Specific Impacts: Impacts on Public Uses — Wildlife Observation and
Photography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-56
Refuge-Specific Impacts: Impacts on Public Use — Environmental Education and
Interpretation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-58
Refuge-Specific Impacts: Impacts on Public Use — Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-58
Refuge-Specific Impacts: Impacts on Public Use — Fishing and Boating. . . . . . . . . 4-59
Refuge-Specific Impacts: Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-61
Refuge-Specific Impacts: Summary of the Impacts of the Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . 4-70
Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination with Others
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
Planning to Protect Land and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
Partnerships Involved in Planning and/or Refuge Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
Chapter 6 List of Preparers
Writers and Major Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
Contractors Assisting in Document Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
Other Individuals Who Contributed During CCP/EA Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2
Glossary (including list of acronyms)
Glossary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glos-1
Acronyms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glos-22
Bibliography
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibl-3
Compatibility Determination — Wildlife Observation, Wildlife Photography,
Interpretation, and Environmental Education Compatibility Determination . . . . . . .B-1
Compatibility Determination — Big Game Hunting Compatibility Determination . . . . .B-7
Compatibility Determination — Fishing and Crabbing Compatibility Determination . . B-17
Finding of Appropriateness — Cooperative Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-23
Compatibility Determination — Cooperative Farming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-25
Finding of Appropriateness — Operation of Ingleside Recreation Area . . . . . . . . . . B-39
Compatibility Determination — Operation of Ingleside Recreation Area
by Kent County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-41
Finding of Appropriateness — Research Conducted by Non-Service Personnel. . . . B-49
Compatibility Determination — Research Conducted by Non-Service Personnel . . . B-51
Table of Contents
Table of Contents vii
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Bank Height and Erosion Status (miles of shore) on
Eastern Neck Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
Table 2.2 Acreage by Land Use and Land Cover Types Existing on
Eastern Neck Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15
Table 2.3 Revenue-sharing Payments to Kent County, MD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-18
Table 2.4 National Vegetation Classification of Eastern Neck Refuge
Tidal Marsh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21
Table 2.5 Green Tree Reservoir Characteristics on Eastern Neck Refuge. . . . . . 2-22
Table 2.6 Cropland management on Eastern Neck Refuge from 2004-2007 . . . . . 2-25
Table 2.7 Maryland midwinter waterfowl survey counts 2003 to 2007. . . . . . . . . 2-28
Table 2.8 Fall-Winter Peak Waterfowl Counts by Year at Eastern Neck Refuge. . 2-29
Table 2.9 Eastern Neck Refuge Marsh and Wading Birds Seasonal Abundance . 2-31
Table 2.10 Raptors of Eastern Neck Refuge and Their Seasonal Abundance . . . . 2-32
Table 2.11 Maryland Greatest Conservation Need grassland birds at
Eastern Neck refuge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-33
Table 2.12 Invasive Plant Species on Eastern Neck Refuge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-38
Appendix C Refuge Operations Needs System (RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance
Management System (SAMMS)
Refuge Operations Needs System (RONS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1
Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-2
Appendix D Wilderness Review
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1
Phase I. Wilderness Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1
Summary of Wilderness Inventory Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-4
Appendix E Refuge Staffing Charts for Alternatives
Refuge Staffing Charts for Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1
Appendix F Fire Management Program Guidance
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1
The Role of Fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1
Wildland Fire Management Policy and Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1
Management Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-2
Fire Management Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-2
Fire Management Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-2
Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-3
Fire Management Organization, Contacts, and Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-3
Appendixes (cont.)
Finding of Appropriateness — Berry Picking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-59
Finding of Appropriateness — Competitive Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-61
Finding of Appropriateness — Geocaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-63
Finding of Appropriateness — Horseback Riding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-65
Finding of Appropriateness — Non-Service Group Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-67
Finding of Appropriateness — Swimming and Sunbathing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-69
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
viii
List of Maps
Map 1.1 Eastern Neck Refuge Location in the Chesapeake Marshlands
Refuge Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
Map 1.2 Eastern Neck Regional Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7
Map 1.3 Eastern Neck Refuge Project Analysis Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8
Map 1.4 Eastern Neck Refuge Boundary and Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-25
Map 2.1 Field Observations of SAV from surveys of the Chester River at
Eastern Neck refuge in 1999 and 2005 (VIMS, 1999, 2005). . . . . . . . 2-9
Map 2.2 Regional parks and Conservation Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14
Map 2.3 Existing Land Use and Land Cover Types on Eastern Neck Refuge. . . . 2-16
Map 2.4 Cropland Fields Map for Eastern Neck Refuge during 2007 . . . . . . . . 2-26
Map 2.5 Recent changes in the range of the Delmarva fox squirrel . . . . . . . . . 2-35
Map 2.6 Eastern Neck Refuge visitor facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-44
Map 2.7 Eastern Neck Refuge deer hunt program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-47
Map 2.8 Eastern Neck Refuge turkey hunt program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-48
Map 3.1 Habitat/Land Use Types Existing Under Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-22
Map 3.2 Public Use Infrastructure Proposed Under Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . 3-24
Map 3.3 Habitat/Land Use Types Proposed Under Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . 3-40
Map 3.4 Public Use Infrastructure Proposed Under Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . 3-42
Map 3.5 Habitat/Land Use Types Proposed Under Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . 3-92
Map 3.6 Public Use Infrastructure Proposed Under Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . 3-93
Map B.1 Eastern Neck Refuge deer hunt program map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-14
Map B.2 Eastern Neck Refuge turkey hunt program map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-15
Map B.3 Existing Land Use/Land Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-36
Map D.1 Eastern Neck Refuge and Existing Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-5
List of Tables (cont.)
Table 2.13 Number of Hunters and Deer Harvested on Eastern Neck Refuge
from 1997-2008. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-46
Table 3.1 Alternative A Habitat/Land Use Acreage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21
Table 3.2 Alternative B Habitat/Land Use Acreage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39
Table 3.3 Alternative C Habitat/Land Use Acreage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-91
Table 3.4 Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative . . . . . 3-102
Table 4.1 Summary impact comparison of the Eastern Neck Refuge CCP
Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-71
Table A.1 Birds of Conservation Concern at Eastern Neck Refuge . . . . . . . . . . A-1
Table A.2 Mammals of Eastern Neck NWR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-8
Table A.3 Amphibians and Reptiles of Eastern Neck NWR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-9
Table A.4 Interjurisdictional Fish of Eastern Neck NWR Waters . . . . . . . . . . . A-10
Table C.1 Projects currently in or planned for RONS database for
Eastern Neck NWR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1
Table C.2 Projects currently in or planned for SAMMS database for
Eastern Neck NWR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-2
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-29
Figure 2.1 Average weekly count of AP Canada geese in crop fields at
Eastern Neck Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-30
Figure 2.2 Delmarva fox squirrels captured at Eastern Neck Refuge, 1982-1999 . . 2-34
Figure 3.1 Average total waterfowl numbers seen in weekly winter surveys
in the vicinity of Eastern Neck Refuge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-49
Introduction and Purpose of and Need
For Action
Chapter 1
Ryan Haggerty/USFWS
Northern diamondback terrapin
Chapter 1. Introduction and Purpose of and Need For Action 1-1
Introduction
Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge (refuge, NWR) is a 2,286-acre island in
Kent County, Maryland. Established in 1962, its purposes are to provide long-term
protection for unique wetlands, threatened or endangered species and
migratory birds of conservation concern, and to sustain regionally significant
concentrations of wildlife. Forty percent of the refuge consists of brackish
tidal1 marsh and tidal ponds. The remaining 60 percent includes upland forest,
cropland, grasslands, shrub/brush, freshwater ponds and moist soil units. Since
2005, it has been managed as part of the Chesapeake Marshlands (CM) National
Wildlife Refuge Complex (Refuge Complex); that includes the Blackwater refuge,
with its Barren Island, Watts Island, Bishops Head, and Spring Island divisions,
and Eastern Neck, Martin and Susquehanna national wildlife refuges (map 1.1).
This draft combines two documents required by federal law.
A comprehensive conservation plan, required by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Administration Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended by
the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-57;
111 Stat. 1253; Refuge Improvement Act).
An environmental assessment, required by the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; 83 Stat. 852; NEPA), as amended.
Chapter 1 explains why we are preparing a Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(CCP) and its supporting Environmental Assessment (EA), details the planning
process we followed, and sets the stage for the five subsequent EA chapters and
six appendixes. Chapter 1:
■ Describes the purpose of, and need for, a CCP
■ Defines our planning analysis area
■ Presents the mission, policies and mandates affecting the development of the
plan
■ Identifies other conservation plans we used as references
■ Clarifies the vision and goals that drive refuge management
■ Describes our planning process and its compliance with NEPA regulations
■ Identifies and addresses public issues or concerns that surfaced during plan
development
Chapter 2, “Description of the Affected Environment,” describes the refuge’s
regional and local setting, physical attributes, habitats and species, and human-created
environment of roads, trails, croplands, impoundments, and buildings.
1 The state of Maryland has jurisdiction for activities in tidal waters below the
mean high tide. In this document, when we refer to Service ownership, or
describe refuge management actions in tidal waters, we generally mean those
areas above mean high tide.
Introduction
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-2 and Purpose of and Need For Action
Introduction Map 1.1
Map 1.1. Eastern Neck Refuge Location in the Chesapeake Marshlands Refuge Complex
Chapter 1. Introduction and Purpose of and Need For Action 1-3
The Purpose of and Need For Action
Chapter 3, “Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred
Alternative” fully evaluates three management alternatives and presents their
respective strategies for achieving the refuge’s purpose, meeting refuge goals
and objectives, and addressing public issues. In the introducing the alternatives,
we describe some actions that are “common to all alternatives”; however, most of
the chapter details those actions that distinguish the alternatives. Alternative A
would continue our present management of the refuge unchanged. Alternative B
represents our Service-preferred alternative. It includes the objectives and
strategies for wildlife, habitats, and public use that we think best meet the
refuge’s purpose, vision, and goals. It emphasizes protection and restoration
of tidal wetlands and management for wintering waterfowl. Alternative C also
emphasizes tidal wetlands protection and restoration, but is distinguished from
alternatives A and B by emphasizing contiguous forest habitat management in
the refuge’s uplands and expanding public use opportunities.
Following public review of this draft CCP/EA, the Regional Director’s decision
on the management alternatives will result in a final CCP to guide refuge
management decisions over the next 15 years. We will also use it to promote
understanding and support for refuge management among state agencies in
Maryland, our conservation partners, local communities and the public.
Chapter 4, “Environmental Consequences,” evaluates the environmental effects
of implementing each of the three management alternatives. That is, it predicts
their foreseeable benefits and adverse impacts for the socioeconomic, physical,
cultural, and biological environments described in chapter 2.
Chapter 5, “Consultation and Coordination with Others,” summarizes how the
public and our partners were involved in the planning process. Their involvement
is vital for the future management of the refuge.
Chapter 6, “List of Preparers,” credits this plan’s writers and contributors.
Six appendixes provide additional supporting documentation and references:
Appendix A: Species and habitats of conservation concern, and other species lists
on the refuge
Appendix B: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations
Appendix C: Refuge Operations Needs System (RONS) and Service Asset
Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) lists
Appendix D: Wilderness Review
Appendix E: Staffing Charts by Alternative
Appendix F: Fire Management Program Guidelines
We propose to develop a CCP for the refuge that, in the Service’s best
professional judgment, best achieves the purposes, goals and vision of the refuge,
and contributes to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge
System), adheres to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) policies and other
mandates; addresses significant issues; and incorporates sound principles of fish
and wildlife science.
NEPA regulations require us to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives,
including our preferred action and no action. The no-action alternative can mean
either (1) not managing the refuge, or (2) not changing its present management.
In this plan, alternative A is the latter. Alternative B is the Service-preferred
alternative.
Our purpose in developing a CCP for Eastern Neck refuge is to establish
management direction that best meets the following goals:
The Purpose of and
Need for the Proposed
Action
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-4 and Purpose of and Need For Action
The Purpose of and Need For Action
Protect and enhance Service trust resources, and species and habitats of special
concern in the Chesapeake Bay region by:
■ Maintaining and restoring the integrity of the refuge shoreline and nearshore
environments to sustain Service trust resources and diverse natural
communities;
■ Managing refuge habitats, as part of a regional partnership, to sustain
wintering populations of migratory waterfowl in the lower Chester River basin
and contribute to the North American Waterfowl Management Plan population
goals for the Chester River and Kent County Bayshore Focus Area;
■ Managing for a variety of upland refuge habitats to continue to support the
rich diversity of songbirds, raptors, butterflies, and other native habitat;
■ Enhancing, through partnerships, the management, protection and monitoring
of inter-jurisdictional fish and other aquatic species on the refuge and in
surrounding waters; and,
■ Protecting and restoring archeological and cultural resources on the refuge.
Maintain a healthy and diverse complex of natural community types comprised of
native plants and animals to pass on to future generations of Americans by:
■ Protecting, enhancing, and restoring the natural diversity, integrity and health
of community types and associated native plants and animals, and sensitive
species on the refuge; and,
■ Protecting the integrity of federal-designated research and public use natural
areas.
Conduct effective outreach activities and develop and implement quality wildlife-dependent
public use programs, with an emphasis on wildlife observation and
photography, to raise public awareness of the refuge and the Refuge System, and
promote enjoyment and stewardship of natural resources in the Chesapeake Bay
region by:
■ Enhancing and increasing effective public outreach activities to increase the
visibility of the Service, the refuge, and the Refuge System and to garner
increased appreciation and support for our conservation activities;
■ Ensuring that visitors are satisfied with the safety, accessibility, and quality of
opportunities to observe and photograph wildlife on the refuge;
■ Providing opportunities for quality, recreational fishing and hunting;
■ Providing opportunities for environmental education and interpretation that
enhance refuge visitor’s understanding of the significant natural resources in
the Chesapeake Bay area, as well as the important role the refuge plays in its
conservation; and
■ Providing opportunities for the public to engage in refuge activities through
a Friends Group, an organized volunteer program, and through partnerships
with individuals, other agencies, universities, and other institutions, there
by promoting the mission, management and objectives of the refuge and the
Refuge System.
The 1997 Refuge Improvement Act requires us to prepare a CCP for every
national wildlife refuge to help fulfill the mission of the Refuge System.
GOAL 1
GOAL 2
GOAL 3
Chapter 1. Introduction and Purpose of and Need For Action 1-5
Regional Context and Project Analysis Areas
These plans specifically fulfill the need to provide each refuge with strategic
management direction for the next 15 years by:
■ Stating clearly the desired future conditions for refuge habitat, wildlife, visitor
services, staffing, and facilities
■ Explaining clearly to state agencies, refuge neighbors, visitors, and partners
the reasons for management actions
■ Ensuring that refuge management conforms to the policies and goals of the
refuge system and legal mandates
■ Ensuring that present and future wildlife dependent public uses are compatible
with the purposes of the refuge
■ Providing long-term continuity and direction in refuge management
■ Justifying budget requests for staffing, operating and maintenance funds
There are additional reasons we identify a need to develop a CCP for this refuge.
This refuge lacks a master plan to accomplish the actions above in a landscape
that has changed considerably since the refuge was established. The economy
and land ownership patterns in the region have changed, pressures for public
access have continued to grow, and new ecosystem and species conservation plans
bearing directly on refuge management have been developed.
Second, we need to evaluate certain facility improvements that include
rehabilitating the historic structure that serves as our refuge headquarters
and visitor contact facility, realignment and paving of the access road to the
headquarters, and paving of the headquarters parking lot.
Third, we have developed strong partnerships vital for our continued success, and
we must convey our vision for the refuge to th ose partners and the public.
Finally, we need a CCP to guide us in conserving Federal trust species in the
Eastern Neck area of the Chesapeake Bay (Bay) that is consistent with the vision,
goals, and objectives of the CM Refuge Complex CCP (USFWS 2006).
All of those reasons clearly underscore the need for the strategic direction a
CCP provides. To help us resolve management issues and public concerns, our
planning process incorporates input from the natural resource agencies of the
State of Maryland, affected communities, individuals and organizations, our
partners and the public.
The regional context (map 1.2) for our analysis is the waters and wetlands
of the Chesapeake Bay and the watershed defined by the Atlantic Coast
Joint Venture as the Chester River and Kent County Bayshore focus area
(http://www.acjv.org/wip/acjv_wip_midatlantic.pdf ). The regional context
encompasses the farmlands and riverine wetlands that support major waterfowl
populations on the upper eastern shore of Maryland. None of the other lands of
the Refuge Complex occur in this focus area.
The project analysis area (map 1.3) includes the tidal marshes and uplands of
Eastern Neck island over which the Service has direct management control and
the mesohaline (brackish) portion of the Bay that includes waters north of Kent
Island along the upper Eastern Shore of Maryland, including the waters at the
mouth of the Chester River defined as the Lower Chester River Basin, that are of
major significance to waterfowl and other Service trust resources.
Regional Context
and Project Analysis
Areas
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-6 and Purpose of and Need For Action
The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning
The Service is part of the Department of the Interior. The Service’s mission is
“Working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife,
and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American
people.”
Congress entrusts to the Service the conservation, protection and enhancement
of these national natural resources: migratory birds, anadromous and
interjurisdictional fish, federal-listed endangered or threatened species, inter-jurisdictional
fish, wetlands, certain marine mammals, and national wildlife
refuges. The Service also operates national fish hatcheries, fisheries assistance
field offices, and ecological services field offices. It also enforces federal wildlife
laws and international treaties on importing and exporting wildlife, assists
states with their fish and wildlife programs, and helps other countries develop
conservation programs.
The Service manual, available online at http://www.fws.gov/policy/manuals/,
contains the standing and continuing directives on fulfilling our responsibilities.
The 600 series of the Service manual addresses land use management, and
sections 601-609 specifically address management of national wildlife refuges.
The Service publishes special directives that affect the rights of citizens or the
authorities of other agencies separately in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR); the Service manual does not duplicate them (see 50 CFR 1–99 online at
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html).
The Service and
the Refuge System
Policies and
Mandates Guiding
Planning
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and its Mission
James Prince/USFWS
Wood duck
Chapter 1. Introduction and Purpose of and Need For Action 1-7
Map 1.2 The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning
Map 1.2. Eastern Neck Regional Context
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-8 and Purpose of and Need For Action
The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning Map 1.3
Map 1.3. Eastern Neck Refuge Project Analysis Area
Chapter 1. Introduction and Purpose of and Need For Action 1-9
The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning
The Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands and waters set aside
specifically for the conservation of wildlife and the protection of ecosystems.
More than 550 national wildlife refuges encompass more than 150 million acres of
lands and waters in all 50 states and several island territories. Each year, more
than 40 million visitors hunt, fish, observe and photograph wildlife, or participate
in environmental education and interpretation on refuges.
In 1997, President William Jefferson Clinton signed into law the Refuge
Improvement Act. That act establishes a unifying mission for the Refuge System.
“The mission of the 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.” —Refuge Improvement Act; Public Law 105-57
It also establishes a new process for determining the compatibility of public uses
on refuges and requires us to prepare a CCP for each refuge. The act states that
the Refuge System must focus on wildlife conservation. It also states that the
mission of the Refuge System, coupled with the purposes for which each refuge
was established, will provide the principal management direction on that refuge.
The Refuge System Manual contains policy governing the operation and
management of the Refuge System that the Service Manual does not cover,
including technical information on implementing refuge polices and guidelines on
enforcing laws. You can review that manual at refuge headquarters. These are a
few noteworthy policies instrumental in developing this CCP.
Policy on Refuge System Planning
This policy (602 FW 1, 2, and 3) establishes the requirements and guidance for
Refuge System planning, including CCPs and step-down management plans. It
states that we will manage all refuges in accordance with an approved CCP that,
when implemented, will help
■ achieve refuge purposes;
■ Fulfill the refuge system mission;
■ Maintain and, where appropriate, restore the ecological integrity of each
refuge and the refuge system;
■ Achieve the goals of the national wilderness preservation system and the
national wild and scenic rivers system; and,
■ Conform to other service mandates.
That planning policy provides guidance, systematic direction, minimum
requirements for developing all CCPs, and provides a systematic decision-making
process that fulfills those requirements. Among them, we are to review
any existing special designation areas or the potential for such designations
(e.g., wilderness and wild and scenic rivers); and, incorporate a summary of those
reviews into each CCP (602 FW 3).
Policy on Maintaining Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental
Health
This policy provides guidance on maintaining or restoring the biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System, including the
protection of a broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources in refuge
The National Wildlife
Refuge System and its
Mission and Policies
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-10 and Purpose of and Need For Action
The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning
ecosystems. It provides refuge managers with a process for evaluating the best
management direction to prevent the additional degradation of environmental
conditions and restore lost or severely degraded environmental components.
It also provides guidelines for dealing with external threats to the biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health of a refuge and its ecosystem
(601 FW 3).
Policy on Appropriateness of Refuge Uses
Federal law and Service policy provide the direction and planning framework
for protecting the Refuge System from inappropriate, incompatible or harmful
human activities and ensuring that visitors can enjoy its lands and waters. This
policy (603 FW 1) provides a national framework for determining appropriate
refuge uses in an effort to prevent or eliminate those uses that should not
occur in the Refuge System. It describes the initial decision process the refuge
manager follows when first considering whether or not to allow a proposed use
on a refuge. An appropriate use must meet at least one of the following four
conditions:
1) The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identifi ed in the Refuge
Improvement Act.
2) The use contributes to fulfi lling the refuge purpose(s), the Refuge System
mission, and goals or objectives described in a refuge management plan
approved after October 9, 1997, the date the Refuge Improvement Act was
signed into law.
3) The use involves the take of fi sh and wildlife under State regulations.
4) The use has been found to be appropriate after concluding a specifi ed fi ndings
process using 10 criteria.
This policy can be viewed on-line at: http://www.fws.gov/policy/library/06-5645.pdf.
Policy on Compatibility
This policy (603 FW 2) complements the appropriateness policy. The refuge
manager must first find a use is appropriate before undertaking a compatibility
review of that use. If the proposed use is not
appropriate, the refuge manager will not allow
the use and will not prepare a compatibility
determination.
This policy and its regulations, with a description
of the process and requirements for conducting
compatibility reviews, can be viewed on-line at
http://policy.fws.gov/library/00fr62483.pdf. Our
summary follows:
The Refuge Improvement Act and its regulations
require an affirmative finding by the refuge
manager on the compatibility of a public use before
we allow it on a national wildlife refuge.
A compatible use is one “that will not materially
interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the
mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the
refuge.”
Jonathan Priday/USFWS
Annual youth fishing
derby
Chapter 1. Introduction and Purpose of and Need For Action 1-11
The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning
The act defines six wildlife-dependent uses that are to receive our enhanced
consideration on refuges: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography,
and environmental education and interpretation.
The refuge manager may authorize those priority uses on a refuge when they are
compatible and consistent with public safety.
When the refuge manager publishes a compatibility determination, it will
stipulate the required maximum reevaluation dates: 15 years for wildlife-dependent
recreational uses; or 10 years for other uses.
The refuge manager may reevaluate the compatibility of any use at any time, for
example, sooner than its mandatory date, or even before we complete the CCP
process, if new information reveals unacceptable impacts or incompatibility with
refuge purposes (602 FW 2.11, 2.12)The refuge manager may allow or deny any
use, even one that is compatible, based on other considerations such as public
safety, policy, or available funding.
Although Service and Refuge System policy and the purpose(s) of each refuge
provide the foundation for its management, other federal laws, executive orders,
treaties, interstate compacts, and regulations on conserving and protecting
natural and cultural resources also affect how we manage refuges. Our “Digest
of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service”
describes many of them at http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/indx.html.
Of particular note are the Federal laws that require the Service to identify and
preserve its important historic structures, archaeological sites, and artifacts.
NEPA mandates our consideration of cultural resources in planning federal
actions. The Improvement Act requires the CCP for each refuge to identify its
archaeological and cultural values. Following is a highlight of some cultural and
historic resource protection laws which relate to the development of CCPs.
The Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa–470ll;
Pub.L. 96–95) approved October 31, 1979, (93 Stat. 721), referred to as ARPA,
largely supplanted the resource protection provisions of the Antiquities Act
of 1906 for archaeological items. ARPA establishes detailed requirements for
issuance of permits for any excavation for or removal of archaeological resources
from federal or Native American lands. It also establishes civil and criminal
penalties for the unauthorized excavation, removal, or damage of those resources;
for any trafficking in those removed from federal or Native American land in
violation of any provision of federal law; and for interstate and foreign commerce
in such resources acquired, transported or received in violation of any state or
local law.
The Archeological and Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 469–469c;
Pub.L. 86–523,) approved June 27, 1960, (74 Stat. 220) as amended by
Pub.L. 93–291, approved May 24, 1974, (88 Stat. 174) carries out the policy
established by the Historic Sites Act (see below). It directs federal agencies to
notify the Secretary of the Interior whenever they find that a federal or federal-assisted
licensed or permitted project may cause the loss or destruction of
significant scientific, prehistoric or archaeological data. The act authorizes the
use of appropriated, donated or transferred funds for the recovery, protection
and preservation of that data.
The Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 461–462, 464–467;
49 Stat. 666) of August 21, 1935, popularly known as the Historic Sites Act, as
Other Mandates
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-12 and Purpose of and Need For Action
The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning
amended by Pub.L. 89–249, approved October 9, 1965, (79 Stat. 971), declares it
a national policy to preserve historic sites and objects of national significance,
including those located on refuges. It provides procedures for designating,
acquiring, administering and protecting them. Among other things, National
Historic and Natural Landmarks are designated under the authority of this act.
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470–470b, 470c–470n),
Pub.L. 89–665, approved October 15, 1966 (80 Stat. 915) and repeatedly amended,
provides for the preservation of significant historical features (buildings,
objects and sites) through a grant-in-aid program to the states. It establishes a
National Register of Historic Places and a program of matching grants under
the existing National Trust for Historic Preservation (16 U.S.C. 468–468d). This
act establishes an Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, which became a
permanent, independent agency in Pub.L. 94–422, approved September 28, 1976
(90 Stat. 1319). The act created the Historic Preservation Fund. It directs federal
agencies to take into account the effects of their actions on items or sites listed or
eligible for listing on the National Register.
The Service also has a mandate to care for museum properties it owns in
the public trust. The most common are archaeological, zoological, botanical
collections, historical photographs, historic objects, and art. Each refuge
maintains an inventory of its museum property. Our museum property
coordinator in Hadley, Massachusetts, guides the refuges in caring for that
property, and helps us comply with the Native American Grave Protection
and Repatriation Act and federal regulations governing federal archaeological
collections. Our program ensures that those collections will remain available to
the public for learning and research.
Other Federal resource laws are also important to highlight as they are
integral to developing a CCP. The Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131–1136;
Pub.L. 88–577) establishes a National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS)
that is composed of Federal-owned areas designated by Congress as “wilderness
areas.” The act directs each agency administering designated wilderness to
preserve the wilderness character of areas within the NWPS, and to administer
the NWPS for the use and enjoyment of the American people in a way that will
leave those areas unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness. The
act also directs the Secretary of the Interior, within 10 years, to review every
roadless area of 5,000 acres or more and every roadless island (regardless of size)
within National Wildlife Refuge and National Park systems for inclusion in the
National Wilderness Preservation System. Service planning policy requires that
we evaluate the potential for wilderness on refuge lands, as appropriate, during
the CCP planning process.
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended, selects certain rivers of
the nation possessing remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife,
historic, cultural, or other similar values, preserves them in a free-flowing
condition, and protects their local environments. Service planning policy requires
that we evaluate the potential for wild and scenic rivers designation on refuge
lands, as appropriate, during the CCP planning process.
Chapter 4, “Environmental Consequences,” evaluates this plan’s compliance
with the acts noted above, and with the Clean Water Act of 1977 as amended
(33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.; Pub.L. 107–303), the Clean Air Act of 1970 as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531–1544), as amended. Finally, we designed this draft
CCP/EA to comply with NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA
(40 CFR 1500–1508).
Chapter 1. Introduction and Purpose of and Need For Action 1-13
The Service developed this report (USFWS 2008) as an update to their 2002
report in consultation with the leaders of ongoing bird conservation initiatives
and such partnerships as Partners In Flight (PIF), the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) and Joint Ventures, the North American
Waterbird Conservation Plan (NAWCP), and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation
Plan. It fulfills the mandate of the 1988 amendment to the Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Act of 1980 (100 Pub. L. 100–653, Title VIII), requiring the
Secretary of the Interior, through the Service, to “identify species, subspecies,
and populations of all migratory non-game birds that, without additional
conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973.” The overall goal of this report is to accurately
identify the migratory and non-migratory bird species (beyond those already
designated as federally threatened or endangered) that represent our highest
conservation priorities.
The geographic scope of this endeavor is the U.S. in its entirety, including island
“territories” in the Pacific and Caribbean. The report encompasses three distinct
geographic scales — the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI)
Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs), the eight Service Regions, and National — and
is primarily derived from assessment scores from three major bird conservation
plans: the Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan,
the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, and the North American Waterbird
Conservation Plan. Bird species included on lists in the report include nongame
birds, gamebirds without hunting seasons, subsistence-hunted nongame birds
in Alaska, and Endangered Species Act candidate, proposed endangered or
threatened, and recently delisted species. Population trends, threats distribution,
abundance and relative density were all factors considered.
This report is intended to stimulate coordinated and collaborative proactive
conservation actions among federal, state, tribal, and private partners. It is
hoped that by focusing attention on these highest-priority species, this report will
promote greater study and protection of the habitats and ecological communities
upon which these species depend, thereby contributing to healthy avian
populations and communities. You may view the report at: http://www.fws.gov/
migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/BCC2008/BCC2008.pdf.
This is one of the plans we used in identifying species of concern in appendix A,
and in developing management objectives and strategies in goals 1 and 2.
Originally written in 1986, the NAWMP describes a 15-year strategy for the
United States, Canada, and Mexico to restore and sustain waterfowl populations
by protecting, restoring and enhancing habitat. The plan committee, including
representatives from Canada, the United States, and Mexico, has modified
the 1986 plan twice to account for biological, sociological, and economic
changes that influenced the status of waterfowl and to allow cooperative
habitat conservation. The most recent modification in 2004 updates the latest
needs, priorities, and strategies for the next 15 years, and guides partners
in strengthening the biological foundation of North American waterfowl
conservation and stakeholder confidence in the direction of the plan. View online
at http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/NAWMP/files/ImplementationFramework.pdf.
To convey goals, priorities, and strategies more effectively, that 2004 modification
comprises two separate documents: Strategic Guidance and Implementation
Framework. The former is for agency administrators and policy-makers who
Conservation Plans
and Initiatives Guiding
the Project
Birds of Conservation
Concern 2008 Report
(USFWS 2008)
North American Waterfowl
Management Plan
(NAWMP; update 2004)
and Joint Venture Plans
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-14 and Purpose of and Need For Action
set the direction and priorities for conservation. The latter includes supporting
technical information for use by biologists and land managers.
The plans are implemented at the regional level in 14 habitat Joint Ventures
and 3 species Joint Ventures (Arctic Goose, Black Duck, and Sea Duck). Our
project area lies in the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (ACJV), which includes all
the Atlantic Flyway states from Maine to Florida and Puerto Rico. The ACJV
Waterfowl Implementation Plan was completed in June 2005. The refuge lies in
the “Chester River and Kent County Bayshore” focus area. Map 1.1 shows the
focus area, or you may view it online at http://www.acjv.org/.
The waterfowl goal for the ACJV is to “Protect 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.” The Black Duck Joint Venture plan also relates to our CCP. Black
ducks use the refuge during the winter although they are uncommon here
during their breeding season and migration. The Black Duck Joint Venture
Plan, Final Draft Strategic Plan (USFWS/CWS 1993) resides online at
http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bdjv/. We used both Joint Venture plans in developing
the objectives and strategies in goals 1 and 2.
The New England/Mid-Atlantic Coast Bird Conservation Region (BCR 30)
provides important resources for migratory birds whose ranges span the
western hemisphere. Habitats associated with coastal ecosystems provide
the highest habitat values and provide critical staging areas for migratory
waterfowl, waterbirds, shorebirds, and landbirds. Coastal beaches and
wetlands, followed by forested upland communities, are considered the most
important habitats in need of protection for migratory birds in the BCR. The
Chesapeake Bay and Delaware Bay, as well as other major bays in the BCR
provide resources critical to many migrating birds as they journey from their
breeding sites in the north to non-breeding sites in Mexico, Central America,
the Caribbean and South America.
Unfortunately, the majority of the lands within BCR 30 have been altered from
their historic condition. From Boston to Washington DC, BCR 30 supports
the highest density of humans on the East Coast. Much of the landscape in the
BCR is dominated by urban development. Habitat loss and degradation (e.g.,
fragmentation, agriculture, and invasive species) are the greatest threats to
bird populations in BCR 30. This plan identifies the bird species and habitats
in greatest need of conservation action in this region, activities thought to be
most useful to address those needs, and geographic areas believed to be the
most important places for conservation work to occur. The plan is meant to be
the start of a regional bird conservation initiative with partners across BCR
30 communicating their conservation planning and implementation activities to
deliver high priority conservation actions in a coordinated manner.
The development of continental bird conservation plans sets the stage for
implementation at smaller geographic scales and led to the development of
implementation plans specific to species groups and BCRs. Within the Mid-
Atlantic/Southern New England bird conservation region (BCR 30), the Partners
in Flight initiative (http://www.blm.gov/wildlife/pl_ 44sum.htm), the U.S.
Shorebird Conservation Plan (http://www.fws.gov/shorebirdplan/), the “Waterbird
Conservation Plan: 2006-2010 for the Mid-Atlantic/New England/Maritimes
(MANEM) region (http://www.fws.gov/birds/waterbirds/manem/index.html)
, and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan have identified bird
conservation priorities by setting population goals at the either the continental,
national, or regional scales. The purpose of the BCR 30 Plan is to bring the
common goals of these plans together into one format that can be used by state
Mid-Atlantic/Southern
New England Bird
Conservation Region (BCR-
30) Implementation Plan
(2007)
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project
Chapter 1. Introduction and Purpose of and Need For Action 1-15
agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and other bird conservation
interests to implement bird conservation activities. The plan merges material
from numerous plans and workshops, including, but not limited to, the BCR 30-
Partners In Flight (PIF) Mini Plan, BCR 30 Coordinated Monitoring Workshop,
the Mid-Atlantic New England Maritimes Regional Waterbird Plan, the
December 2004 BCR 30 All-Bird Conservation Workshop, and other materials.
We used this plan to help develop objectives and strategies for goals 1 and 2, and
to create appendix A, “Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern.” It can be
accessed on-line at http://www.acjv.org).
This plan (Kushlan et al. 2002) is an independent partnership among individuals
and institutions interested in, or responsible for, conserving water birds and
their habitats. The plan is just one element of a multi-faceted conservation
program. The primary goal of the plan is to ensure that the distribution,
diversity, and abundance of populations and habitats of breeding, migratory,
and non-breeding water birds are sustained or restored throughout the lands
and waters of North America, Central America, and the Caribbean. It provides
a framework for conserving and managing colonially nesting water-dependent
birds. In addition, it will facilitate continent-wide planning and monitoring,
national, state, and provincial conservation, regional coordination, and local
habitat protection and management. You can access the continental plan online at
http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/nacwcp/nawcp.html. We used this plan to help develop
objectives and strategies for goals 1 and 2, and to create appendix A, “Species
and Habitats of Conservation Concern.”
A partnership of organizations and individuals working to facilitate waterbird
conservation in the Mid-Atlantic/New England/Maritimes (MANEM) region of
the US and Canada has developed a regional waterbird conservation plan. Over
200 partners comprising the MANEM Waterbird Working Group have compiled
and interpreted technical information on the region’s waterbird populations and
habitats, assessed conservation status of these natural resources, developed
strategies to ensure the persistence of sustainable waterbird populations in the
region, and identified near term priorities. MANEM partners include wildlife
managers, scientists, policy makers, educators and funders.
The MANEM region consists of Bird Conservation Regions 14 (Atlantic
Northern Forest) and 30 (New England/Mid-Atlantic Coast), and Pelagic Bird
Conservation Regions 78 (Northeast US Continental Shelf) and 79 (Scotian
Shelf). The MANEM Waterbird Conservation Plan is being implemented within
the context and framework of the North American Waterbird Conservation
Plan—a project of the Waterbird Conservation for the Americas Initiative
(www.waterbirdconservation.org).
Seventy-four waterbird species utilize habitats in MANEM for breeding,
migrating and wintering. Avian families include loons, grebes, shearwaters,
storm-petrels, boobies, pelicans, cormorants, herons, ibises, rails,
gulls, terns, skuas, jaegers and alcids. Partners in four subregions of
MANEM selected 43 Focal Species for immediate conservation action.
In addition, 55 of MANEM’s waterbirds are identified in state wildlife
action plans as Species of Greatest Conservation Need. You can access
information on Mid-Atlantic/New England/Maritimes Regional planning
online at http://www.fws.gov/birds/waterbirds/MANEM/. We used this
plan to help develop objectives and strategies for goals 1 and 2.
Concerns about shorebirds led to the creation of the U.S. Shorebird Conservation
Plan in 2000. Brown, et al. published a second edition in May 2001. Developed
under a partnership of individuals and organizations throughout the United
States, the plan develops conservation goals for each U.S. region, identifies
North American Waterbird
Conservation Plan (Version
1, 2002)
Mid-Atlantic/New
England/Maritimes
(MANEM) Waterbird
Conservation Plan (2008)
U.S. Shorebird (2001, 2nd
ed.) and North Atlantic
Regional Shorebird (2000)
Plans
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-16 and Purpose of and Need For Action
important habitat conservation and research needs, and proposes education and
outreach programs to increase public awareness of shorebirds and of threats
to them. You may read the U.S. Shorebird Plan online at http://www.fws.gov/
shorebirdplan/USShorebird/downloads/USShorebirdPlan2Ed.pdf.
In the Northeast, the North Atlantic Regional Shorebird Plan was also drafted to
step down the goals of the continental plan to smaller scales to identify priority
species, species goals, habitats, and prioritize implementation projects. The
North Atlantic Regional Shorebird Plan appears online at http://www.fws.gov/
shorebirdplan/RegionalShorebird/RegionalPlans.htm. We used both plans in
developing our objectives and strategies for goals 1 and 2.
In July 2007, the Service issued a final ruling to officially remove the bald eagle
from the Federal list of endangered and threatened species due to its successful
recovery throughout its range in the lower 48 states. The bald eagle continues
to be protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle protection Act (Eagle Act) and
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The Service developed these National
Bald Eagle Management Guidelines to advise landowners, land managers, and
others who share public and private lands with bald eagles when and under what
circumstances the protective provisions of the Eagle Act may apply to their
activities. The Guidelines are intended to help people minimize such impacts
to bald eagles, particularly where they may constitute disturbance,” which is
prohibited by the Eagle Act. The Guidelines are intended to: (1) publicize the
provisions of the Eagle Act that continue to protect bald eagles, in order to
reduce the possibility that people will violate the law, (2) advise landowners, land
managers and the general public of the potential for various human activities to
disturb bald eagles, and (3) encourage additional nonbinding land management
practices that benefit bald eagles. The document is intended primarily as a
tool for landowners and planners who seek information and recommendations
regarding how to avoid disturbing bald eagles. You can view these management
guidelines at: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/issues/BaldEagle/
NationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf. We referred to these guidelines
as we developed management objectives and strategies for bald eagles.
The successful recovery of the bald eagle was, in part, due to the implementation
of regional bald eagle recovery plans. During development of this CCP,
we referred to the Chesapeake Bay Recovery Plan for any management
recommendations that are still relevant to ensuring the survival and productivity
of bald eagles in the Chesapeake Bay area.
In 1990, Partners-in-Flight (PIF) began as a voluntary, international coalition
of government agencies, conservation organizations, academic institutions,
private industries, and citizens dedicated to reversing the population declines of
bird species and “keeping common birds common.” The foundation of its long-term
strategy is a series of scientifically based bird conservation plans using
physiographic areas as planning units.
The goal of each PIF plan is to ensure the long-term maintenance of healthy
populations of native birds, primarily non-game birds. The plan for each
physiographic area ranks bird species according to their conservation priority,
describes their desired habitat conditions, develops biological objectives, and
recommends conservation measures. The priority ranking factors in habitat loss,
population trends, and the vulnerability of a species and its habitats to regional
and local threats.
Physiographic Area 44—Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain (April 1999).
Our project area lies in Physiographic Area 44, the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain. In
developing our habitat goals and objectives, we referred to its draft plan, online
at http://www.blm.gov/wildlife/pl_ 44sum.htm.
National Bald Eagle
Management Guidelines
(2007)
Chesapeake Bay Bald
Eagle Recovery Plan (1982)
Partners-in-Flight Bird
Conservation Plans
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project
Chapter 1. Introduction and Purpose of and Need For Action 1-17
The plan (PIF, 1999) includes objectives for the following habitat types and
associated species of conservation concern on the refuge:
■ Barrier and Bay Islands: piping plover, American black duck, Wilson’s plover,
brown pelican, American oystercatcher, black skimmer, least tern, and gull-billed
tern.
■ Salt Marsh: salt marsh sharp-tailed sparrow, black rail, prairie warbler,
Henslow’s sparrow, seaside sparrow, sedge wren, American black duck, and
clapper rail.
■ Forested Wetland: cerulean warbler, Swainson’s warbler, Kentucky warbler,
Acadian flycatcher, yellow-throated vireo, prothonotary warbler, and Louisiana
waterthrush.
■ Mixed Upland Forest: cerulean warbler, wood thrush, Kentucky warbler,
Acadian flycatcher, worm-eating warbler, eastern wood-pewee, and Louisiana
waterthrush.
■ Early Successional: prairie warbler, Bachman’s sparrow, Henslow’s sparrow,
blue-winged warbler, upland sandpiper, and white-eyed vireo.
■ Fresh/Brackish Emergent Wetland: American black duck, king rail.
We used this plan to help develop objectives and strategies for goals 1 and 2, and
to create appendix A, “Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern.”
Responsibility for preparing migratory bird flyway management plans lies
with Flyway Councils, which are administrative bodies who represent state
and provincial wildlife agencies in North America. The Flyway Councils work
cooperatively with the Service, the Canadian Wildlife Service, and the Mexican
government’s wildlife agency (SEMARNAT). The Eastern Population (EP) of
tundra swans has been managed under a joint, four flyway management plan
first developed and implemented in 1982, with additions and updates occurring
in 1988 and 1998. Since 1998, a number of research projects have cast light upon
some of the uncertainties identified in the 1998 plan. This 2007 plan, prepared
by the Ad Hoc Eastern Population Tundra Swan Committee of the four Flyway
Councils, incorporates new information, particularly related
to the use and accuracy of mid-winter counts, and updates its
recommendations for the long-term conservation of these swans.
It can be accessed on-line at http://www.mdwfa.org/flyway.html.
The specific purpose of this plan is to identify population goals,
establish guidelines and priorities for management actions,
identify strategies and assign responsibilities, specify levels
of public use and emphasize research needs to improve the
management of EP swans. The primary management goal is to
maintain an EP tundra swan population of 80,000 in the Atlantic
and Mississippi Flyways. The plan discusses how the protection
of breeding, staging, and wintering habitat is critical to this goal
and to the long-term maintenance of EP tundra swans and the
habitats they rely upon.
Eastern Neck refuge and the surrounding shallow water
habitats contribute to this goal by providing important staging
and wintering habitat for tundra swans. We consulted this plan
and its recommended management actions as we developed an
objective and strategies for tundra swan under goal 1.
A Management Plan for
the Eastern Population of
Tundra Swans (July 2007)
Tundra swan
Dave Herr/USFWS
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-18 and Purpose of and Need For Action
The Atlantic Flyway Council’s Canada Goose committee provides this update
to the Atlantic Flyway Canada Goose Management Plan developed in 1989.
The 1989 plan established population objectives and placed emphasis on
status assessments using wintering ground survey information. In 1996, in
response to dramatic declines in the Atlantic Population (AP) Canada goose
population, coupled with an increase in the resident Canada goose population,
the Atlantic Flyway Council developed an action plan to address immediate
survey and research needs that would help guide management to rebuild AP
goose numbers. Management efforts since 1996 have been directed towards
ensuring population growth, resulting in a significant turnaround. This 2007
plan provides management guidelines to promote continued growth of the
AP goose population at sustained higher levels. It can be accessed on-line at
http://www.mdwfa.org/flyway.html.
The overall management goal in this plan is to maintain the AP Canada goose
population and their habitats at a level that provides optimum opportunities for
people to use and enjoy geese on a sustainable basis. The population objective
believed necessary to achieve this goal is to maintain an index of 250,000
breeding pairs of AP Canada geese in the Ungava region of Québec, Canada.
One of the long-term strategies for maintaining this population is the
conservation of important breeding, staging, and wintering habitats. Eastern
Neck refuge provides staging and wintering habitat. We consulted this plan as we
developed objectives and strategies under goal 1.
The Atlantic Flyway Council’s Snow Goose, Brant and Swan Committee prepared
this plan in response to the exponential growth of the invasive, exotic mute swan
population in the flyway that was occurring between 1986 and 2002, especially
in Maryland and Virginia where the populations were doubling every 12 years.
Mute swans are a Eurasian species, not native to North America. They are highly
invasive of wetland habitats, impact native species of fish and wildlife, damage
commercial agricultural crops, and pose a threat to human health and safety.
Because of their consumption of large quantities of submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAV) and aggressive behavior, they compete directly with many other native
waterbirds and fisheries for limited resources in critical habitats.
The goal of this management plan is to “reduce the mute swan populations in the
Atlantic flyway to levels that will minimize negative ecological impacts to wetland
habitats and native migratory waterfowl and to prevent further range expansion
into unoccupied areas.” This plan lists five specific management objectives and
numerous associated strategies to achieve this goal. It can be accessed on-line at
http://www.mdwfa.org/flyway.html.
We consulted this plan, as well as the Chesapeake Bay Program’s mute swan
plan (see below) and the Maryland DNR mute swan plan (also below) to develop
strategies for dealing with this invasive species. We discuss in chapter 3, under
“Actions Common to All Alternatives” our intent to continue working closely
with Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MD DNR) in controlling this
species.
This plan was prepared by the Chesapeake Bay Program’s Mute Swan Working
Group. We describe the successful partnership that is the foundation of the
Chesapeake Bay Program below. Mute swans were identified as one of the
highest concerns among the partners in the program when asked which species
are causing, or have the highest potential to cause, adverse ecological effects
in the Bay’s ecosystem. In response to this elevated concern, a working group
was formed, comprised of researchers, and federal and state natural resource
managers, to develop a bay-wide regional mute swan management plan.
A Management Plan for
the Atlantic Population
of Canada Geese (Draft;
July 2007)
Atlantic Flyway Mute
Swan Management Plan
(July 2003)
Mute Swan in the
Chesapeake Bay: A Bay-wide
Management Plan
(June 2004)
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project
Chapter 1. Introduction and Purpose of and Need For Action 1-19
The goal of the plan is to manage the Chesapeake Bay population of mute swans
to a level that a) minimizes the impacts on native wildlife, important habitats,
and local economies; b) minimizes conflict with humans; c) is in agreement
with the Chesapeake Bay Program’s Chesapeake 2000 Agreement goals for
SAV and invasive species; and, d) is in agreement with the Atlantic Flyway
Mute Swan Management Plan. The plan identifies management objectives
and strategies that will work to meet this goal. It can be accessed on-line at
http://www.mdwfa.org/flyway.html.
We consulted this plan, as well as the other mute swan plans identified below, as
we considered management actions to control mute swan. We describe those in
chapter 3, Alternatives, under “Actions Common to All Alternatives.” Our intent
is to continue working closely with MD DNR to control this species.
This plan was cooperatively written by the state, provincial, and federal agencies
responsible for managing local-nesting or “resident” Canada geese in the Atlantic
Flyway. It does not prescribe specific regulations or dictate management policies
or programs, but identifies an overall management goal and five management
objectives developed by all the cooperators. The concern with resident Canada
geese is that their numbers began to escalate in the 1980s and biologists became
concerned that their numbers might be masking a decline in the number of
migratory AP Canada geese. This concern was coupled with the recognition that
the resident geese were contributing significantly to sport harvests, and human/
goose conflicts in urban and suburban areas. Banding studies have confirmed
that these resident geese are a distinct population from the migratory AP
Canada geese with very different management needs and opportunities.
We consulted this plan as we considered alternative management actions to
benefit waterfowl under goal 1 objectives. Our intent is to continue working
closely with MD DNR in controlling this species. The plan can be accessed at
http://www.mdwfa.org/flyway.html.
Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (PARC) was created in
response to the increasing, well-documented national declines in amphibian
and reptile populations. PARC members come from state and federal agencies,
conservation organizations, museums, the pet trade industry, nature centers,
zoos, the power industry, universities, herpetological organizations, research
laboratories, forest industries and environmental consultants. Its five geographic
regions—Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Southwest and Northwest—focus on
national and regional herpetofaunal conservation challenges. Regional working
groups allow for region-specific communication.
The National State Agency Herpetological Conservation Report (NHCR), a
summary report sponsored by PARC, provides a general overview of each state
wildlife agency’s support for reptile and amphibian conservation and research
through September 2004. Each state report was compiled in cooperation with its
agency’s lead biologist on herpetofaunal conservation. The purpose is to facilitate
communication among state agencies and partner organizations throughout
the PARC network to identify and address regional and national herpetological
priorities.
PARC intends to expand the scope of the NHCR to include other states,
provinces, and territories. It will also include other state agencies that are
supporting herpetofaunal conservation and research, such as transportation
departments, park departments, and forest agencies. The U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) is supporting the Northeastern Partners in Amphibian and Reptile
Conservation Home Page as part of its contribution to PARC. It is being served
by the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, (http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/partners/)
Atlantic Flyway
Resident Canada Goose
Management Plan
(July 1999)
Partners in Amphibian
and Reptile Conservation,
National—State
Agency Herpetological
Conservation Report
(Draft 2004)
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-20 and Purpose of and Need For Action
part of the USGS Eastern Region. The next NHCR will also integrate the
list of species of conservation concern into each state’s comprehensive wildlife
conservation strategy (see below). We used the latest draft NHCR plan in
developing objectives and strategies for goals 1 and 2, and in developing
appendix A, “Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern.”
The Service’s Fisheries Program (Program) primary mission is to work with
others to maintain self-sustaining, healthy populations of coastal and anadromous
fish (fish that spend part of their lives in fresh water and part in the ocean),
fish species that cross state or national boundaries, and endangered aquatic
animals and their habitats. In the Northeast Region, 25 fishery management
offices and national fish hatcheries work with states and other partners to
restore and protect a variety of fish and other aquatic species. Examples include
Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), American shad
(Alosa sapidissima), river herring (Alosa pseudoharengus, Alosa aestivalis),
Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus), horseshoe crab (Limulus
polyphemus), American eel (Anguilis rostrata), and menhaden (Brevoortia
tyrannus).
The Program has played a vital role in conserving and managing fish and other
aquatic resources since 1871. Today, the Program is a critical partner with states,
Tribes, other governments, other Service programs, private organizations, public
institutions, and interested citizens in a larger effort to conserve these important
resources. In 2002, working with its many partners in aquatic conservation
through the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council’s Fisheries Steering
Committee, the Service completed its Strategic Vision (Vision) document:
“Conserving America’s Fisheries, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fisheries
Program Vision for the Future.” That vision document includes goals, objectives,
and action items on a national programmatic scale.
The Program is committed to working with partners to
■ Protect the health of aquatic habitats;
■ Restore fish and other aquatic resources; and
■ Provide opportunities to enjoy the many benefits of healthy aquatic resources.
The Regional Fisheries Program Strategic Plan (Plan) is an extension of
the vision, describing more specifically the tactics to be implemented by the
Northeast Region to fulfill the goals and objectives identified in the vision.
The first plan covered years 2004 to 2008. The current plan can be viewed at
http://www.fws.gov/northeast/fisheries/.
This plan brings together changing national direction, institutional knowledge,
analysis of spatial information, and the perspectives of our state and tribal
partners to develop a strategic plan that allows this regional program to
prioritize its efforts during challenging times, while promoting positive change
into the future. As the plan is implemented it will we build on a strong foundation
of active partnerships and past accomplishments, while recognizing that
continued communication, cooperation and expansion of partnerships is essential
for successful implementation of this plan and fulfillment of the Program’s
resource responsibilities and obligations. This plan was built off the lessons
learned from implementing the 2004-2008 strategic plan, which was very broad.
One step-down effort resulting from the plan is the identification and ranking
of fish and other aquatic species as to their level of conservation concern by
U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service Fisheries Program,
Northeast Region Strategic
Plan 2009–2013 (January
2009)
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project
Chapter 1. Introduction and Purpose of and Need For Action 1-21
hydrologic unit. We used this ranking and have consulted with the Regional
Fisheries Program staff in developing aquatic objectives and strategies under
goals 1 and 2, and in creating appendix A, “Species and Habitats of Conservation
Concern.”
In 2002, Congress created the State Wildlife Grant (SWG) Program, and
appropriated $80 million in state grants. The purpose of the program is to help
state and tribal fish and wildlife agencies conserve fish and wildlife species of
greatest conservation need. The funds appropriated under the program are
allocated to states according to a formula that takes into account their size and
population.
To be eligible for additional federal grants and satisfy the requirements for
participating in the SWG program, each state and U.S. territory was to develop
a statewide “Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy” and submit it to
the National Advisory Acceptance Team by October 1, 2005. Each plan was
to address eight required elements, identify and focus on “species of greatest
conservation need,” yet address the “full array of wildlife” and wildlife-related
issues, and “keep common species common.”
The MD DNR called their plan a “Wildlife Diversity Conservation Plan”
(WDCP). The goal of the plan is to create a vision for conserving that state’s
wildlife and stimulate other states, federal agencies, and conservation partners
to think strategically about their individual and coordinated roles in prioritizing
conservation.
In addressing the eight elements below, the Maryland WDCP supplements
and validates the information on species and habitat and their distribution in
our analysis area, and helps us identify conservation threats and management
strategies for species and habitats of conservation concern in the CCP. The
expertise that convened to compile this plan and the partner and public
involvement further enhances its benefits for us. We used it in developing
objectives and strategies for goals 1 and 2, and in developing appendix A,
“Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern.” These are the eight elements.
1) Information on the distribution and abundance of species of wildlife, including
low and declining populations, as the state fi sh and wildlife agency deems
appropriate, that are indicative of the diversity and health of the state’s
wildlife;
2) Descriptions of locations and relative condition of key habitats and community
types essential to the conservation of species identifi ed in element 1;
3) Descriptions of problems that may adversely affect species identifi ed in
element 1 or their habitats, and priority research and survey efforts needed
to identify factors that may assist in restoration and improved conservation of
these species and habitats;
4) Descriptions of conservation actions necessary to conserve the identifi ed
species and habitats and priorities for implementing such actions;
5) Plans proposed for monitoring species identifi ed in element 1 and their
habitats, for monitoring the effectiveness of the conservation actions
proposed in element 4, and for adapting those conservation actions to respond
appropriately to new information or changing conditions;
6) Description of procedures to review the plan at intervals not to exceed
10 years;
Maryland Department of
Natural Resources, Wildlife
Diversity Conservation
Plan (MD DNR 2005),
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-22 and Purpose of and Need For Action
7) Plans for coordinating, to the extent feasible, the development,
implementation, review, and revision of the plan strategy with federal, state,
and local agencies and Native American tribes that manage signifi cant areas
of land and water within the state, or administer programs that signifi cantly
affect the conservation of identifi ed species and habitats; and,
8) Plans for involving the public in the development and implementation of plan
strategies.
This plan can be accessed on line at
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/divplan_wdcp.asp
We also consulted the plans and resources below as we refined our management
objectives and strategies, especially those with a local context.
Chesapeake Bay Program. The Chesapeake Bay Program is a unique regional
partnership directing and conducting the restoration of the Bay since the
signing of the historic 1983 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. The Chesapeake
Bay Program partners include the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania and
Virginia; the District of Columbia; the Chesapeake Bay Commission, a tri-state
legislative body; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, representing the
federal government; and participating advisory groups. Since its inception
in 1983, the Bay Program’s highest priority has been the restoration of the
Bay’s living resources, including finfish, shellfish, Bay grasses including
SAV, and other aquatic life and wildlife. Improvements include fisheries and
habitat restoration, recovery of Bay grasses, nutrient and toxic reductions,
and significant advances in estuarine science. The Program is responsible for
many valuable reports and publications on Bay resources and is an important
source of information for us. Many of these publications can be found on-line at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/bayresourcelibrary.aspx?menuitem=13998.
In 2000, the partnership decided to reaffirm its commitment and update its vision
and goals. The result is the “Chesapeake 2000 Agreement.” Five goals were
established under the themes “Living Resources Protection and Restoration;”
“Vital Habitat Protection and Restoration;” Water Quality Protection
and Restoration;” “Sound Land Use;” and, “Stewardship and Community
Engagement.” We reviewed this plan’s goals and recommended management
actions as they relate to all our CCP goals, objectives and strategies.
In April 2007, the Program released its Chesapeake Bay 2006
Health and Restoration Assessment. The report gives watershed
residents a clear and concise synopsis of Bay health and on-the-ground
restoration efforts taking place across its vast watershed
(http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_26038.pdf ). The report
is divided into two parts: Ecosystem Health and Restoration Efforts. This
format of reporting, first used to detail the condition of the Bay in 2005, allows
the Bay Program partnership to look at the effectiveness of clean-up actions
across the entire watershed and allocate restoration efforts appropriately.
Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MD DNR). We have consulted
with MD DNR staff and many of their publications in developing our plan. In
addition to their state WDCP, their publication “Mute Swans in Maryland:
A Statewide Management Plan” (April 14, 2003) was instrumental in
developing our strategies to address invasive mute swans. We are a committed
partner with MD DNR in controlling mute swans and fully subscribe to the
Other Regional Information
Sources
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project
Chapter 1. Introduction and Purpose of and Need For Action 1-23
recommendations they made in this plan. This plan can be accessed on line at
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/finalmsplan.pdf
Chester River Association (CRA). This group is an advocate for the health of
the Chester River and the living resources it supports. CRA strives to promote
stewardship of the Chester River — its forests, marshes, fields, creeks, and
streams — as well as an understanding of the river’s place in the economic and
cultural life of our communities. In its efforts to improve water quality, educate
the public and facilitate resolution of river-related issues, CRA is a voice for the
Chester River. CRA was founded in 1986 and established its Chester Riverkeeper
program in 2002. Through meetings, forums, field trips, publications, habitat
restoration projects, the Chester Testers and collaboration with community
groups and government agencies, CRA strives to improve water quality and
increase public awareness of river and watershed issues. Our partnering for
water quality improvement in the Lower Chester River Basin would include non-governmental
organizations like the CRA.
Kent County Comprehensive Plan, May 2006. This comprehensive plan is the
statement of development policy for Kent County by the County Commissioners.
The Plan presents a series of goals and strategies to guide the preparation of
County regulations and the application of County programs. These goals and
policies are organized in eight functional categories dealing with the economy,
towns and villages, the countryside, the environment, housing, transportation,
community facilities and public services, and historic and cultural preservation.
Each section contains a summary of important issues and trends. We used the
land use and land use trends data in this plan to evaluate socioeconomic impacts.
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project
Bayscape Garden
on the Refuge
Jonathan Priday/USFWS
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-24 and Purpose of and Need For Action
Eastern Neck Refuge Management Profile
Eastern Neck refuge was established by executive order on December 27, 1962,
under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715 d) “for use as an
inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.”
By virtue of its strategic location at the confluence of the Chester River and the
Bay, it is of significant value to migrating and wintering waterfowl on Maryland’s
Upper Eastern Shore.
Before it became a refuge, farming and hunting prevailed as uses on the island,
which was known as one of Maryland’s best hunting areas. Today, the refuge
provides habitat for more than 240 bird species, including bald eagles. It hosts a
large variety of migrating waterfowl and provides staging and wintering habitat
for tundra swans, a population of global importance. Although they are a rare
sight on the refuge today, in the past, the refuge has supported a population of
the Federal-listed endangered Delmarva fox squirrel (DFS).
Map 1.4 depicts the current refuge and its features.
Human populations within the analysis area and the Chesapeake Bay watershed
are rapidly increasing. By 2020, the population within the watershed is expected
to increase almost 33 percent (Maryland Office of Planning 2000).
The influx of humans causes substantial changes in land use. In 25 years, more
than 3,500 square miles of forest, wetlands, and farms—an area 50 times greater
than Washington, D.C.—will have been converted to suburban or urban uses
(Chesapeake Bay Foundation 2000). The available open space is declining (e.g.,
farms, fields, forests, wetlands and other wildlife habitats), and the areas that
remain are becoming more and more fragmented. At the same time, land use and
ownership patterns are changing, as a generational shift occurs.
Economic and cultural stresses are acting to replace a landscape dominated
by communities of watermen, farmers, and forest owners grounded in a rural
economy, with a landscape of vacation homes, retirement communities, and
waterfront estates grounded in a suburban economy. Population growth, habitat
fragmentation, and other land use changes on the Eastern Shore mainland and
on other Bay islands must serve as an important backdrop for the refuge, since
these forces ultimately result in elemental changes to fish, wildlife, and plant
populations and to ecosystem processes. They create logistical problems in
land management, maintenance, and law enforcement, and produce significant
recreational demands and pressures on the CM Refuge Complex.
Prior to Service acquisition of the Eastern Neck refuge lands in 1962, the bulk
of the lands were in the large ownerships of hunting clubs (FWS 1971). One
exception was the Cape Chester Development Corporation which owned a major
tract on the island and had sub-divided it into many small lots. Only one home
had been built prior to Service acquisition; that home became the original refuge
headquarters. Eastern Neck Island was spared the impacts of development
and allowed to revert largely to natural vegetation. The refuge now serves both
as a highly valued natural area for consumptive and non-consumptive wildlife-dependant
recreational uses with 70,000 visitors annually and as a demonstration
area for natural landscapes with native species plantings, best management
farming practices, and alternative energy.
Eastern Neck Refuge
Management Profile
Eastern Neck Refuge
Establishing Authority and
Purpose
Eastern Neck Refuge
Management Context
Chapter 1. Introduction and Purpose of and Need For Action 1-25
Map 1.4 Eastern Neck Refuge Management Profile
Map 1.4. Eastern Neck Refuge Boundary and Features
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-26 and Purpose of and Need For Action
Refuge Vision
The refuge is administered as part of the CM Refuge Complex, with
headquarters in Cambridge, Maryland on Blackwater refuge. Staffing and
budget decisions are made by the Refuge Complex Project Leader.
Refuge System planning policy lists more than 25 step-down management
plans that may be required on refuges. Those plans contain specific strategies
and implementation schedules for achieving refuge goals and objectives. Some
plans require annual revisions; others require revision every 5 to 10 years.
Some require additional NEPA analysis, public involvementt, and compatibility
determinations before we can implement them.
The following step-down plans are those we are pursuing for this refuge. This
document incorporates by reference those that are up-to-date. Chapter 3
provides more information about the step-down plans needed and their schedule
for completion.
The Integrated Pest Management, Chronic Wasting Disease, and Avian
Influenza plans have recently been completed for the Refuge Complex and
address Eastern Neck refuge.
The following plans will be developed for the entire CM Refuge Complex, with
details on Eastern Neck refuge incorporated.
■ Law Enforcement Plan
■ Safety Plan
The following plans will be completed as separate Eastern Neck refuge plans.
■ Habitat Management Plan (HMP; highest priority step-down plan to be
completed after CCP approval)
■ Annual Habitat Work Plan (AHWP; updated annually and provides details on
habitat management for the forthcoming year)
■ Inventory and Monitoring Plan (IMP)
■ Fire Management Plan (also, see appendix F for Fire Management Program
Guidance)
■ Visitor Services Plan (VSP)
In Chapter 3, “Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred
Alternative,” under the section “Actions Common to All of the Alternatives,
Refuge Step-Down Plans” we include a schedule for these plans. Additional plans
may be required depending on the alternative selected for the final CCP.
Very early in the planning process, our team developed this vision statement to
provide a guiding philosophy and sense of purpose in the CCP.
“Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge will sustain diverse and healthy
tidal marsh, aquatic and uplands habitats so the refuge supports robust
populations of Federal trust species and remains an essential link in the
network of conserved lands in the Chesapeake Bay. Our successes will
be supported by the strong partnerships we develop with other Federal
agencies, State agencies, conservation organizations, land managers,
and neighboring communities. Working with those partners will provide
Refuge Administration
Refuge Operational Plans
(“Step-down” Plans)
Refuge Vision
Chapter 1. Introduction and Purpose of and Need For Action 1-27
Refuge Goals
the opportunity to showcase and demonstrate a science-based, adaptive
management approach, with emphasis on the protection and restoration
of shoreline and tidal marsh.
We will continue to reward all who visit with an opportunity to immerse
themselves in the natural sights and sounds of the Chesapeake Bay.
The thrill of observing more than 100,000 migrating and wintering
waterfowl moving in and out of the refuge each year, including the rare
tundra swan, is an experience that forms a lasting impression about
the wonders of nature. Visitors will also be delighted by the refuge’s
healthy populations of bald eagles and ospreys as they dive for fish and
attend to their young. They will also enjoy the opportunity to observe the
phenomenon of over 100 species of birds migrating through each fall. We
will enhance these and other refuge experiences by providing exceptional
interpretive and visitor programs about the Chesapeake Bay and its rich
diversity of natural and cultural resources.
We hope residents of neighboring communities on the Delmarva
Peninsula will value the refuge for enhancing their quality of life. Within
the National Wildlife Refuge System, the refuge will be treasured for
conserving the Chesapeake Bay’s Federal trust resources and providing
inspirational outdoor experiences for present and future generations of
Americans.”
We developed the following goals after considering the vision, the purposes of the
refuge, the missions of the Service and the Refuge System, and the mandates,
plans, and conservation initiatives above. These goals are intentionally broad,
descriptive statements of purpose. They highlight elements of our vision for the
refuge we will emphasize in its future management. The biological goals take
precedence; but otherwise, we do not present them in any particular order. Each
offers background information on its importance. In chapter 2, “Alternatives
Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative,” we evaluate different
ways of achieving these goals.
Protect and enhance Service trust resources and species and habitats of special
concern in the Chesapeake Bay region.
Our highest priority over the next 15 years is to protect against additional
refuge shoreline erosion and loss of refuge tidal marsh. Shoreline and tidal
marsh habitats are threatened by erosive forces and invasive species; nearby
shallow waters and submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) beds also face these
threats and the impact of pollutants. The integrity of the refuge, and its ability to
support both aquatic and terrestrial Federal trust species and habitats, depends
on stemming shoreline, tidal marsh and SAV bed losses. The protection and
monitoring of species that rely on these habitat areas, such as inter-jurisdictional
fish, shellfish, and other aquatic species on the refuge, is an important part of
this goal.
These habitat areas and others on the island also sustain nesting bald eagles, and
a wide diversity of other migratory songbirds and waterfowl. Managing refuge
habitats, as part of a regional partnership to sustain wintering populations of
migratory waterfowl and contribute to North American Waterfowl Management
Plan population goals is another important aspect of this goal. The upper
eastern shore of the Bay has historically sustained the greatest concentrations
of Atlantic Population (AP) Canada geese and other wintering waterfowl in
the Atlantic Flyway. Wintering birds are attracted to the Chester River basin
because of its extensive areas of brackish tidal marsh, open shallow water, and
Refuge G oals
GOAL 1
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-28 and Purpose of and Need For Action
Refuge Goals
SAV beds. Eastern Neck refuge, which is uniquely located in the lower Chester
River basin and the only protected Federal land on the upper eastern shore of
Maryland, provides sanctuary, shelter from severe weather, and food to sustain
these wintering waterfowl and other migratory birds. The rare tundra swan also
winters in the shallow waters near the refuge.
Other Federal trust resources covered by this goal are the many archeological
and cultural resources on refuge lands. The refuge’s long history of pre-colonial
and colonial uses has resulted in structures and sites eligible for the National
Historic Register.
Maintain a healthy and diverse complex of natural community types comprised of
native plants and animals to pass on to future generations of Americans.
Eastern Neck refuge supports a wide diversity of habitats, with brackish
tidal marshes, natural ponds and impoundments, upland forests, hedgerows,
and grasslands, and a variety of managed rotational croplands. In addition
to the waterfowl and bald eagles mentioned in goal 1, these habitats support
a broad array of breeding and migrating songbirds and other wildlife. It is a
stopping over point for migrating monarch butterflies and also sustains many
other species of breeding butterflies and other insects and invertebrates. Our
challenge is to use our available resources as effectively as possible to deal with
invasive plants and animals, optimize the mix of habitat types, and accommodate
compatible wildlife-dependent public uses. Our goal is to manage these habitats
to sustain a diversity of native species for the long term and to minimize invasive
species.
Conduct effective outreach activities and develop and implement quality, wildlife-dependent
public use programs, with an emphasis on wildlife observation and
photography, to raise public awareness of the refuge and the Refuge System, and
promote enjoyment and stewardship of natural resources in the Chesapeake Bay
region.
Our desire is to be a recognized, welcomed, and valued part of the Eastern Shore
community. Our concern is that we are not well known in the Kent County area.
Raising the visibility of the Service, the NWRS, and the refuge will encourage
people to learn about the importance of refuge habitats and species of concern,
and the refuge’s role in conserving Bay resources. An effective outreach program
will enhance support for our programs and allow us to proactively anticipate and
deal with public issues if they arise.
Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental
education and interpretation are the six priority wildlife-dependent public uses
identified in the Refuge Improvement Act. The Act stipulates those six uses
are to receive enhanced consideration in refuge planning, but does not establish
a hierarchy among those six uses. Opportunities to engage in them should be
provided to the extent compatible with specific refuge goals and objectives. The
ability to fund the management of these activities is also a factor for refuge
managers to consider in determining their compatibility. Service policy requires
that refuge managers set limits on, and establish stipulations for, any of those
activities as warranted to ensure their compatibility. Each of these activities is
already facilitated on current refuge lands.
An analysis in 2006 conducted by the Northeast Region’s Visitor Services’ team
recommended that we focus on wildlife observation and wildlife photography
opportunities on this refuge. Our goal is to improve current opportunities
for those programs as a priority, and enhance other compatible programs
GOAL 2
GOAL 3
Chapter 1. Introduction and Purpose of and Need For Action 1-29
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
to the extent feasible, through expanded programs, new infrastructure or
improved access.
Service policy establishes an eight-step planning process that also facilitates
our compliance with NEPA (Figure 1.1).2 Our planning policy and CCP training
course materials describe those steps in detail. We followed that process in
developing this draft CCP/EA.
Figure 1.1. The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
2 602 FW 3, “The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process”
(http://policy.fws.gov/602fw3.html)
The Comprehensive
Conservation Planning
Process
A. Preplanning:
Plan the Plan
NEPA
􀁴􇐀􀀁􀄀􀁑􅄀􀁖􅘀􀁓􅌀􀁑􅄀􀁐􅀀􀁔􅐀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀􀁏􄼀􀁆􄘀􀁆􄘀􀁅􄕈
H. Review & Revise Plan
NEPA
􀁴􇐀􀀁􀄀􀀯􂼀􀀦􂘀􀀱􃄀􀀢􂈀􀀁􀄀􀁄􄐀􀁐􅀀􀁎􄸀􀁑􅄀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁄􄐀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀􀁑􅄀��􅘀􀁃􄌀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁄􄐀􀀁􀄀
􀁊􄨀􀁏􄼀􀁗􅜀􀁐􅀀􀁍􄴀􀁗􅜀􀁆􄘀􀁎􄸀􀁆􄘀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀀁􀄀􀁘􅠀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀁏􄼀􀀁􀄀􀁂􄈀􀁑􅄀􀁑􅄀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁄􄐀􀁂􄈀􀁃􄌀􀁍􄴀􀁆􄙂
B. Initiate Public
Involvement & Scoping
NEPA
􀁴􇐀􀀁􀄀􀁏􄼀􀁐􅀀􀁕􅔀􀁊􄨀􀁇􄜀􀁚􅨀􀀁􀄀􀁕􅔀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀁑􅄀􀁖􅘀􀁃􄌀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁄􄐀
􀁴􇐀􀀁􀄀􀁊􄨀􀁏􄼀􀁗􅜀􀁐􅀀􀁍􄴀􀁗􅜀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀁕􅔀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀁑􅄀􀁖􅘀􀁃􄌀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁄􄐀
􀁴􇐀􀀁􀄀􀁔􅐀􀁄􄐀􀁐􅀀􀁑􅄀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀁕􅔀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀁊􄨀􀁔􅐀􀁔􅐀􀁖􅘀􀁆􄘀􀁔􅑆
F. Prepare & Adopt Final Plan
NEPA
􀁴􇐀􀀁􀄀􀁓􅌀􀁆􄘀􀁔􅐀􀁑􅄀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀􀁕􅔀􀁐􅀀􀀁􀄀􀁑􅄀􀁖􅘀􀁃􄌀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁄􄐀􀀁􀄀􀁄􄐀􀁐􅀀􀁎􄸀􀁎􄸀􀁆􄘀����􄼀􀁕􅔀
􀁴􇐀􀀁􀄀􀁊􄨀􀁅􄔀􀁆􄘀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀁊􄨀􀁇􄜀􀁚􅨀􀀁􀄀􀁑􅄀􀁓􅌀􀁆􄘀􀁇􄜀􀁆􄘀􀁓􅌀􀁓􅌀􀁆􄘀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀􀁂􄈀􀁍􄴀􀁕􅔀􀁆􄘀􀁓􅌀􀁏􄼀􀁂􄈀􀁕􅔀􀁊􄨀􀁗􅜀􀁆􄘀
􀁴􇐀􀀁􀄀􀁑􅄀􀁓􅌀􀁆􄘀􀁑􅄀􀁂􄈀􀁓􅌀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀􀁅􄔀􀁊􄨀􀁔􅐀􀁕􅔀􀁓􅌀􀁊􄨀􀁃􄌀􀁖􅘀􀁕􅔀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀁇􄜀􀁊􄨀􀁏􄼀􀁂􄈀􀁍􄴀􀀁􀄀􀀤􂐀􀀤􂐀􀀱􃄀􀀁􀄀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀
􀀯􂼀􀀦􂘀􀀱􃄀􀀢􂈀􀀁􀄀􀁅􄔀􀁐􅀀􀁄􄐀􀁖􅘀􀁎􄸀􀁆􄘀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀁂􄈀􀁕􅔀􀁊􄨀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀
􀁴􇐀􀀁􀄀􀁑􅄀􀁓􅌀􀁆􄘀􀁑􅄀􀁂􄈀􀁓􅌀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀􀁅􄔀􀁊􄨀􀁔􅐀􀁕􅔀􀁓􅌀􀁊􄨀􀁃􄌀􀁖􅘀􀁕􅔀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀀧􂜀􀀰􃀀􀀯􂼀􀀴􃐀􀀪􂨀􀀁􀄀􀁇􄜀􀁐􅀀􀁓􅌀􀀁􀄀􀀦����􂈀􀀁􀄀
􀁐􅀀􀁓􅌀􀀁􀄀􀀳􃌀􀀰􃀀􀀥􂔀􀀁􀄀􀁇􄜀􀁐􅀀􀁓􅌀􀀁􀄀􀀦􂘀􀀪􂨀􀀴􃑄
D. Develop &
Analyze Alternatives
NEPA
􀁴􇐀􀀁􀄀􀁓􅌀􀁆􄘀􀁂􄈀􀁔􅐀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀􀁂􄈀􀁃􄌀􀁍􄴀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀁓􅌀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁈􄠀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀁐􅀀􀁇􄜀􀀁􀄀􀁂􄈀􀁍􄴀􀁕􅔀􀁆􄘀􀁓􅌀􀁏􄼀􀁂􄈀􀁕􅔀􀁊􄨀􀁗􅜀􀁆􄘀􀁔􅐀
􀁴􇐀􀀁􀄀􀀯􂼀􀁐􅀀􀀁􀄀􀀢􂈀􀁄􄐀􀁕􅔀􀁊􄨀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀􀀁􀄀􀁂􄈀􀁍􄴀􀁕􅔀􀁆􄘀􀁓􅌀􀁏􄼀􀁂􄈀􀁕􅔀􀁊􄨀􀁗􅜀􀁆􄘀
􀁴􇐀􀀁􀄀􀁂􄈀􀁄􄐀􀁄􄐀􀁆􄘀􀁔􅐀􀁔􅐀􀀁􀄀􀁆􄘀􀁏􄼀􀁗􅜀􀁊􄨀􀁓􅌀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀􀁎􄸀􀁆􄘀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀁂􄈀􀁍􄴀􀀁􀄀􀁆􄘀􀁇􄜀􀁇􄜀􀁆􄘀􀁄􄐀􀁕􅔀􀁔􅐀
􀁴􇐀􀀁􀄀􀁕􅔀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀀱􃄀􀁓􅌀􀁐􅀀􀁑􅄀􀁐􅀀􀁔􅐀􀁆􄘀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀􀀢􂈀􀁄􄐀􀁕������􄨀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄽇
G. Implement Plan, Monitor &
Evaluate
NEPA
􀁴􇐀􀀁􀄀􀀯􂼀􀀦􂘀􀀱􃄀􀀢􂈀􀀁􀄀􀁄􄐀􀁐􅀀􀁎􄸀􀁑􅄀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁄􄐀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀􀁑􅄀􀁖􅘀􀁃􄌀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁄􄐀􀀁􀄀
􀁊􄨀􀁏􄼀􀁗􅜀􀁐􅀀􀁍􄴀􀁗􅜀􀁆􄘀􀁎􄸀􀁆􄘀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀀁􀄀􀁘􅠀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀁏􄼀􀀁􀄀􀁂􄈀􀁑􅄀􀁑􅄀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁄􄐀􀁂􄈀􀁃􄌀􀁍􄴀􀁆􄙃
C. Review Vision Statement &
Goals & Determine
Significant Issues
NEPA
􀁴􇐀􀀁􀄀􀁊􄨀􀁅􄔀􀁆􄘀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀁊􄨀􀁇􄜀􀁚􅨀􀀁􀄀􀁔􅐀􀁊􄨀􀁈􄠀􀁏􄼀􀁊􄨀􀁇􄜀􀁊􄨀􀁄􄐀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀀁􀄀􀁊􄨀􀁔􅐀􀁔􅐀􀁖􅘀􀁆􄘀􀁔􅑅
E. Prepare Draft Plan &
NEPA Document
NEPA
􀁴􇐀􀀁􀄀􀁑􅄀􀁓􅌀􀁆􄘀􀁑􅄀􀁂􄈀􀁓􅌀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀􀁅􄔀􀁊􄨀􀁔􅐀􀁕􅔀􀁓􅌀􀁊􄨀􀁃􄌀􀁖􅘀􀁕􅔀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀁅􄔀􀁓􅌀􀁂􄈀􀁇􄜀􀁕􅔀􀀁􀄀􀀤􂐀􀀤􂐀􀀱􃄀􀀁􀄀
􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀􀀯􂼀􀀦􂘀􀀱􃄀􀀢􂈀􀀁􀄀􀁅􄔀􀁐􅀀􀁄􄐀􀁖􅘀􀁎􄸀􀁆􄘀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀁂􄈀􀁕􅔀􀁊􄨀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀
􀁴􇐀􀀁􀄀􀁑􅄀􀁖􅘀􀁃􄌀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁄􄐀􀀁􀄀􀁄􄐀􀁐􅀀􀁎􄸀􀁎􄸀􀁆􄘀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀀁􀄀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀􀁓􅌀􀁆􄘀􀁗􅜀􀁊􄨀􀁆􄘀􀁘􅠀
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-30 and Purpose of and Need For Action
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
Since 1962, we have focused on conserving and managing Eastern Neck refuge
to help sustain migratory and wintering waterfowl and other trust species,
facilitating wildlife-dependent public uses, managing habitat for species, such
as the bald eagle, and establishing and maintaining good relationships with the
community and our partners. In 2001, we began to prepare for developing a
CCP by collecting information on refuge resources and mapping its habitats. We
undertook the following actions to complete planning steps A-D.
■ Held first CCP core team meeting in September 2001; drafted a vision
statement and identified preliminary issues.
■ Hosted an intra-agency Visitor Services Station Evaluation in September 2001.
■ Hosted an intra-agency Biological Program Station Evaluation in October
2001.
■ Published a Federal Register Notice of Intent (NOI) in June 2002.
■ Distributed a planning newsletter in spring 2002 to announce project kick-off,
and share draft vision statement.
■ Held public scoping meetings in June 2002.
■ Distributed a planning newsletter in spring 2003 summarizing public scoping
comments and announcing project would be put on hold to complete other
regional CCP projects overdue.
■ Held a conservation priorities workshop with regional experts in November
2006.Distributed a planning newsletter in December 2006 to announce CCP
process reinitiated, and share draft goals.
■ Published a Federal Register NOI in January 2007 to announce CCP process
reinitiated.
■ Hosted a public meeting in January 2007.
Planning team meeting
USFWS
Chapter 1. Introduction and Purpose of and Need For Action 1-31
Development of Issues
■ Held a series of CCP team meetings to develop alternatives from
February– June 2007.
■ Consulted with Service and state experts in analyzing the alternatives during
June 2007 to June 2008.
As part of the planning process, we also evaluated Service fee-owned lands on
the refuge for their possible inclusion into the National Wilderness Preservation
System. We completed that evaluation in 2007 with the recommendation that we
not proceed further with a wilderness study because we determined that refuge
lands do not meet the criteria for eligibility. Appendix D shows the results of our
assessment.
We will complete “Step E: Prepare Draft Plan and NEPA document,” by
publishing our Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Federal Register announcing
the release of this draft CCP/EA and by distributing this document for public
review. During a 30-day period of public review, we will hold a public meeting to
obtain comments. We also expect to receive comments by regular mail, electronic
mail, or at public meetings. After the comment period expires, we will review and
summarize all of the comments we have received and develop our responses. We
will present them in an appendix to the final CCP.
Once we have prepared the final CCP, we will submit it to our Regional
Director for his review and approval. He will determine whether a Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate, and certify whether the final
CCP meets agency compliance requirements, achieves refuge purposes, and
helps fulfill the mission of the Refuge System. With an affirmative FONSI and
other positive findings, the Regional Director can approve the final CCP. If
that happens, we will publish another Federal Register NOA to announce the
availability of the final plan. That will complete “Step F: Prepare and Adopt a
Final Plan.” We can then begin “Step G: Implement Plan, Monitor and Evaluate.”
We will modify the final CCP as warranted following the procedures in Service
policy (602 FW 1, 3, and 4) and NEPA requirements as part of “Step H: Review
and Revise Plan.” Minor revisions that meet the criteria for categorical exclusions
(550 FW 3.3C) will require only an Environmental Action Memorandum. We
must fully revise CCPs every 15 years.
Because the refuge is part of the CM Refuge Complex, we are addressing
its management goals, opportunities and issues in the larger context of the
Refuge Complex, as well as in terms of the refuge’s own unique location, history
and resource attributes. In developing the issues to be addressed in Eastern
Neck refuge CCP planning, we reviewed the whole array of issues addressed
during the CM refuge complex CCP process and brought forward those that
were directly relevant to Eastern Neck refuge management. We added issues
identified in the 2002 and 2007 scoping phases done specifically for Eastern
Neck refuge and those that that were identified in our public participation
efforts.
The CM Refuge Complex CCP planning team identified four major issue areas:
1) Potential effects of an expanding human population and changing
demographics on Service trust resources;
2) Potential effects of land acquisition and refuge expansion;
Development of Issues
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-32 and Purpose of and Need For Action
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
3) Potential effects of habitat changes; and
4) Potential effects on fl oral and faunal populations.
We do not plan to acquire additional lands or expand the refuge, so we did not
include Issue Area 2 in our planning. The CM Refuge Complex CCP does not
address cultural or historic resources at the issue level. However, a substantial
number of cultural and historic resources are known at Eastern Neck refuge and
others are likely to be found in the future. Therefore, because we need to protect
those Federal trust resources while meeting our primary wildlife management
objectives, we identified them as a separate issue area.
In formulating the refuge issues, we framed them as questions for objectivity,
clarity, and ease of understanding.
Eastern Neck refuge key issue areas are:
Issue Area 1. How can we most effectively address ongoing threats to refuge
habitats and native fish and wildlife species?
Issue Area 2. What species and habitats should be our management priority, how
should we manage to benefit them, and what other environmental values can we
support?
Issue Area 3. How can we address the effects of expanding human populations
and increasing recreational demand in the Chesapeake Bay region on Service
trust resources at the refuge?
Issue Area 4. How can we best address potential effects on cultural and historic
resources?
There are substantive threats to the wildlife species and habitats of the refuge
that must be addressed in any plan that seeks to manage refuge resources to
benefit wildlife and allow wildlife-related public uses. Significant shoreline
erosion threatens the integrity of the island and surrounding tidal marsh
habitats. Permanent habitat loss is the end result. This is our highest priority
and immediate management concern. The long-term success of any management
activity we propose for wildlife or refuge habitats, whether it be in the wetlands
or uplands, depends upon our ability to reduce shoreline erosion and tidal marsh
loss. All of these concerns, and actions we take to address them, need to be
evaluated in light of long-term climate change impact predictions. Rising sea
level, rising air and water temperatures, increased intensity of storm events are
a few of the major changes that could influence the future integrity, diversity, and
health of our habitats and the species that depend on them.
Pollutants and erosion also threaten the submerged aquatic plants and shallow
water habitats that support waterfowl and other species in the lower Chester
River basin near the refuge. Invasive plants threaten refuge tidal marsh and
upland habitats. We address this issue area through our objectives and strategies
under Goals 1 and 2.
Invasive and exotic species are also a current threat to refuge habitats. Much of
the refuge’s uplands are inundated with numerous invasive or exotic plants that
outcompete native vegetation. The loss of native vegetation compromises the
habitat quality for many wildlife
Issue Area 1. How can we
most effectively address
ongoing threats to refuge
habitats and species,
Including those from
Climate Change?
Invasive plants on the
refuge
USFWS
Chapter 1. Introduction and Purpose of and Need For Action 1-33
Development of Issues
How can we best mitigate shoreline erosion and wetland loss?
Past studies have shown that the Bay shoreline is severely eroding in many
areas (USACOE 1986, VIMS 1977, Singewald 1946). Particularly hard hit are
the islands off the Eastern Shore. Since colonial times, at least 10,800 acres
have been lost in the middle-eastern portion of the Bay alone. The shoreline
recession rates of many islands exceed 10 ft per year, with an associated load of
approximately 2,541,717 kg (2,500 tons) of sediment per mile annually entering
the Bay (Offshore and Coastal Technologies 1991).
Loss of brackish tidal wetlands at the refuge is occurring along the shoreline due
to erosion. This has been mitigated on the bayside by a recent Army Corps of
Engineers project that placed a series of breakwaters with small inlets, behind
which vegetation restoration is underway. In an area restored with clean dredge
spoil material, volunteers planted Spartina alterniflora and other wetland
grasses in an attempt to improve the habitat, restore lost wetlands, and reduce
future erosion.
Erosion on the Chester River side threatens SAV beds and the island,
particularly at Hail Point. Hail Point Marsh, which is designated as a Research
Natural Area, provides 130 acres of undisturbed mar sh for wildlife habitat and
biological research. However, at present, there are no intensive research projects
being pursued here. The Hail Point area also serves as a major migration site for
a significant number of monarch butterflies each year.
Our discussion below about predicted climate change impacts describes further
challenges related to addressing erosion and loss of wetlands.
How can we protect and restore submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and
shallow water habitat?
Water clarity and SAV health at the refuge also are being impacted, and some
of the most important waterfowl wintering habitats in the region are being
lost. The presence of SAV beds is one of the most significant determinants for
sustaining waterfowl populations. Unfortunately these are very susceptible to
pollution and poor water quality. Nutrients entering the Chester River from farm
fields, septic systems, and other sources stimulate algae growth, which blocks
sunlight required by SAV for photosynthesis. Subsequent plant decay consumes
the water’s dissolved oxygen — a process that can result in “dead zones” where
oxygen-dependent organisms can no longer survive. A bi-weekly water quality
monitoring program was instituted in 2003 on the refuge at Bogles Wharf. The
most significant parameter of the water quality testing program is turbidity
which impacts the health of SAV and dependent biota. Protecting SAV is also a
factor in mute swan management.
Unless the related problems of erosion and SAV loss are addressed, the refuge’s
value as a natural environment within the Bay will severely diminish. We
must decide what actions we can take to address this problem effectively and
efficiently, and what level of resources we can commit to this issue.
What are the best strategies to control invasive and exotic plants on the
refuge?
Non-native or exotic plants introduced from other parts of the world or other
parts of the country have degraded many natural ecosystems and are a major
problem for the refuge. Invasive plants can spread rapidly, smothering or out-competing
native vegetation. Ecosystems impacted by invasive, non-native plants
have a reduced ability to clean air and water, stabilize soil, buffer floods, and
provide wildlife food and shelter.
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-34 and Purpose of and Need For Action
Development of Issues
Invasive plants at the refuge are a significant problem; they are established
on over 50% of refuge lands. These plants are prolific, often overtopping and
choking out other plants and depleting or eliminating valued wildlife habitats.
The refuge currently has 15 species of invasive plants; four considered as species
of concern: mile-a-minute, Phragmites, Johnsongrass, and Canada thistle weed.
Invasive species of concern are actively controlled; the refuge tracks the spread
and control of invasive plants utilizing Geographic Information Systems (GIS),
Global Positioning Systems (GPS), permanent vegetation monitoring plots, and
photo points. In 2006, 400 out of a reported 1,250 acres of land infested with
invasive plants were treated on the refuge. Treatment successfully controlled
invasive plants on 50 of these 400 acres.
We are currently studying the effectiveness of a series of control measures on
five invasive plant species by monitoring for five seasons (summer/fall) post
treatment from 2007 to conclude fall 2011. At issue is how we can most effectively
and efficiently utilize limited refuge resources to control invasive plant species.
Total eradication is probably not possible for many species. Mile-a-mile and
Phragmites are the most problematic at the refuge in terms of their impacts on
native environments. Some species, such as Japanese honeysuckle, are exotic
and may be somewhat invasive, but may not directly impact refuge management
objectives. While some invasive plant control actions are included in chapter 2,
“Alternatives Considered Including the Service-preferred Alternative,” in the
section, “Actions Common to All Alternatives,” the alternatives also evaluate
additional levels of effort and different methods of invasive plant control. Please
refer to chapter 3, “Affected Environment,” for a more detailed discussion of the
mile-a-minute and Phragmites problems on the refuge.
What actions can Service staff implement on refuge lands to minimize the
projected impacts to habitats and species from global and regional climate
change?
Climate change is an issue of increasing public concern because of its potential
effects on land, water, and biological resources. The issue was pushed to the
forefront in 2007 when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), representing the world’s leading climate scientists, concluded that it is
“unequivocal” that the Earth’s climate is warming, and that it is “very likely”
(a greater than 90 percent certainty) that the heat-trapping emissions from
the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities have caused “most of the
observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth
century” (IPCC 2007). According to the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment
team, “continued warming, and more extensive climate-related changes to come
could dramatically alter the region’s economy, landscape, character, and quality
of life” (NECIA 2007).
Other predicted major climate-related changes beyond warming air
temperatures, include changing patterns of precipitation, significant acceleration
of sea level rise, changes in season lengths, decreasing range of nighttime versus
daytime temperatures, increasing water temperatures, declining snowpack,
and increasing frequency and intensity of severe weather events (TWS 2004).
In the Chesapeake Bay region, the implications of sea-level rise are the most
disconcerting within the next few decades. According to the National Wildlife
Federation in their technical publication “Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Habitats in
the Chesapeake Bay Region (2008),” the Chesapeake Bay region “…is one of the
most vulnerable places in the nation to the impacts of sea-level rise.”
The ramifications of sea-level rise in the bay area, most notably erosion and
saltwater intrusion, are exacerbated by the low-lying topography, growing
coastal population, and the naturally-subsiding coastal lands (NWF 2008). The
Chapter 1. Introduction and Purpose of and Need For Action 1-35
Development of Issues
EPA reports that in the region, erosion rates caused by sea-level rise will be “…
higher than those that have been observed over the past century” (EPA 2009).
Of increasing concern is that fact that rising sea-level is causing saltwater
intrusion into estuaries and freshwater areas, reducing the diversity and extent
of saltmarsh habitat, killing trees and other vegetation, and threatening many
plant and animal species dependent on a certain level of salinity (NWF 2008).
The ability of saltmarsh to migrate inland, or establish at higher elevations
as sediment builds up in other areas, is severely hampered by the level of
development and shoreline armoring that has occurred in many areas of the
Chesapeake Bay.
Since wildlife species are closely adapted to their environments, they must
respond to climate variations, and the subsequent changes in habitat conditions,
or they will not survive. Unfortunately, the challenge for wildlife is complicated
by increases in other environmental stressors such as pollution, land use
developments, ozone depletion, exotic species, and disease. The NWF reports
that a decline in saltwater marsh, and SAV and eelgrass beds will adversely
impact the nursery and spawning habitat of many fish species, shellfish beds,
waterbird and waterfowl wintering and breeding habitat, and aquatic mammals
and reptiles such as Federal-listed sea turtles, the endemic diamondback
terrapin, beaver and otter.
Many wildlife professionals and conservation organizations recommend
we manage refuge lands using an adaptive management framework, and
increase biological research, monitoring and inventories. According to the
NWF, these actions are important for land managers to undertake in order to
reduce our vulnerability and to build in the flexibility to effectively respond
to the uncertainty of future climate change effects. Ultimately, we hope our
management will reduce environmental stressors, provide support for self-sustaining
populations, and ensure widespread habitat availability through land
protection and conservation.
The refuge contains about 1,200 acres of upland habitats and 1,000 acres of
wetlands. Across these acres a variety of habitats including marsh, forest,
freshwater impoundments and agricultural fields support a d