Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge and Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving,
protecting, and enhancing fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit 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 69 national fish hatcheries and 81 ecological services field stations. The agency
enforces Federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant
fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, administers the Endangered
Species Act, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the
Federal Assistance Program which distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on
fishing and hunting equipment to state wildlife agencies.
This blue goose, designed by
J.N. “Ding” Darling, has become
the symbol of the National Wildlife
Refuge System.
Front cover:
Little Marsh on Mason Neck
National Wildlife Refuge
Bill Wallen
Bald eagle
Bill Wallen
Prothonotary warbler
©Jeff Lewis
Wood ducks
Dave Menke/USFWS
Great blue heron
Steve Hillebrand/USFWS
Back cover:
Little Marsh on Mason Neck
National Wildlife Refuge
Bill Wallen
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck
National Wildlife Refuge and
Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
September 2011
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Submitted by:
___________________________________________________ __________________________
Gregory J. Weiler
Refuge Manager
Potomac River National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Concurrence by:
___________________________________________________ __________________________
Daryle R. Lons
Refuge Supervisor, South
National Wildlife Refuge System, Region 5
___________________________________________________ __________________________
Scott B. Kahan
Assistant Regional Director
National Wildlife Refuge System, Region 5
Approved by:
___________________________________________________ __________________________
Wendi Weber
Acting Regional Director, Region 5
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Vision Statement i
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck
National Wildlife Refuge
and Featherstone National
Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
September 2011
The Potomac River National Wildlife Refuge Complex provides exceptional
forested, grassland, and wetland habitats for wildlife in a dynamic, highly
urbanized region of Northern Virginia. We will maintain and enhance those
quality habitats along the middle tidal Potomac River for native wildlife,
particularly bald eagles and other species of conservation concern.
The proximity of the Refuge Complex to our Nation’s capital provides
unparalleled opportunities to demonstrate the importance of the natural world
in enhancing the quality of human life and raise public awareness about the
value of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Through outreach, education,
and partnerships, we will foster stewardship of the living resources of the tidal
Potomac River and the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Visitors will have diverse
opportunities for quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation.
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge is dedicated to the
protection of the bald eagle and exemplifies the significant efforts, contributions,
and successes of conservationists in Virginia. The refuge will continue to protect
and enhance regionally important habitat for the bald eagle, migratory birds,
and native wildlife and plant species along the tidal Potomac River. We will
provide quality wildlife-dependent recreational and educational opportunities,
in particular, wildlife viewing and photography. In cooperation with the other
agencies in the Mason Neck Management area, we will work to resolve resource
issues on the Mason Neck Peninsula.
Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge provides valuable acres of ‘wild woods
and wetland’ which are rapidly disappearing within this region of Virginia. The
refuge will continue to protect wetlands, bottomland hardwoods, and associated
native wildlife and plants in an otherwise highly urbanized setting along the tidal
Potomac River. Assuming access issues are resolved, the refuge will provide
limited, quality, wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities, in particular,
wildlife viewing and fishing.
Potomac River
National Wildlife
Refuge Complex
Vision Statement
Elizabeth Hartwell
Mason Neck Refuge
Vision Statement
Featherstone Refuge
Vision Statement
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Summary iii
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck
National Wildlife Refuge
and Featherstone National
Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
September 2011
Summary
Type of Action: Administrative – Development of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
Location: Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge —
Fairfax County, Virginia
Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge —
Prince William County, Virginia
Administrative
Headquarters:
Potomac River National Wildlife Refuge Complex
14344 Jefferson Davis Highway
Woodbridge, VA 22191
Responsible Offi cial: Wendi Weber, Acting 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 Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the 2,277-acre Elizabeth
Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge (Mason Neck Refuge) and the
325-acre Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge (Featherstone Refuge) is the
culmination of a planning effort involving the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Virginia State agencies, local partners, refuge neighbors, private landowners, the
Friends of Potomac River Refuges, and the local community. This CCP establishes
15-year management goals and objectives for the refuges’ wildlife and habitats,
public use programs, and administration and facilities.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge and
Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
iv
Summary
Under this plan, we make improvements to both refuges’ biological and public
use programs. On Mason Neck Refuge, our highest priority is to protect and
enhance the diversity, integrity, and health of Great Marsh, other refuge wetlands,
and the refuge’s mature hardwood-mixed forest habitats to support Federal
trust resources and species of conservation concern, particularly bald eagles,
waterbirds, and forest-dwelling songbirds. We also plan to work with partners to
design and implement measures to protect the refuge’s shoreline from erosion. We
will enhance our visitor services program by improving infrastructure and the
quality of our wildlife observation, nature photography, white-tailed deer hunting,
interpretation, and environmental education opportunities. We will also offer new
opportunities, such as a youth turkey hunt.
On Featherstone Refuge, our highest priority is to monitor and protect sensitive
wildlife habitat, such as shoreline and riparian forest, from human disturbance.
For the first time, we will open Featherstone Refuge to public use by allowing
non-motorized boat access at one designated location along Farm Creek. In order
to open the refuge to further public use, we will continue to work with Prince
William County and other stakeholders to secure public parking and safe, legal
public access to the refuge. Once public access is secured, we will construct
trails and viewing and fishing platforms to facilitate wildlife observation, nature
photography, and recreational fishing. When we have additional staff in place, we
will evaluate a detailed proposal to offer a hunting program in cooperation with
the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries.
For both refuges, we will improve our outreach and visibility in the community
through new or enhanced partnerships. Finally, we will employ an adaptive
management approach that includes adjusting our objectives and strategies as a
result of new information.
Chapters
Chapter 1 The Purpose of, and Need for, Action
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
Document Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5
The Purpose of, and Need for, this Comprehensive Conservation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6
Regional Context and Project Analysis Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8
The Service and Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning . . . . . . . 1-12
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-20
Refuge Management Profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-32
Vision Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-34
Refuge Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-34
Chapter 2 The Planning Process
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
Chapter 3 Existing Environment
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
Regional Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
Socioeconomic Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9
Special Regional Conservation Areas and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13
Potomac River Refuge Complex Administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17
Mason Neck Refuge Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20
Featherstone Refuge Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-43
Chapter 4 Management Direction and Implementation
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
Part One—Mason Neck Refuge Management
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
General Refuge Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
Conducting Additional NEPA Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20
Mason Neck Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22
Detailed Objectives and Strategies to Meet Refuge Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22
Part Two—Featherstone Refuge Management
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-56
General Refuge Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-56
Conducting Additional NEPA Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-61
Featherstone Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-62
Detailed Objectives and Strategies to Meet Refuge Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-62
Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination with Others
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
Planning to Protect Refuge Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
Partners Involved in Refuge Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6
Contact Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7
Chapter 6 List of Preparers
Writers and Major Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
v
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge and
Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chapters (cont.)
Finding of Appropriateness—Berry Picking/Mushroom Harvesting/
Flower Picking/Medicinal Harvesting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-3
Finding of Appropriateness—Biking Off of Designated Routes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-5
Finding of Appropriateness—Geocaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-7
Finding of Appropriateness—Horseback Riding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-9
Finding of Appropriateness—Jogging (Except as Allowed under “Non-motorized
Modes of Access on Designated Trails”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-15
Finding of Appropriateness—Non-wildlife-dependent Group Gatherings . . . . . . . . . . B-17
Finding of Appropriateness—Organized or Facility-supported Picnicking. . . . . . . . . . B-19
Finding of Appropriateness—Swimming and Sunbathing on Refuge Shore . . . . . . . . B-21
Finding of Appropriateness—Dog Walking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-23
Compatibility Determination—Dog Walking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-25
Finding of Appropriateness—Outdoor Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-29
Compatibility Determination—Outdoor Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-31
Finding of Appropriateness—Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-39
Compatibility Determination—Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-41
Finding of Appropriateness—Non-motorized Modes of Access on
Designated Trails. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-47
Compatibility Determination—Non-motorized Modes of Access on
Designated Trails. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-49
Compatibility Determination—Wildlife Observation, Photography,
Environmental Education, and Interpretation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-59
Compatibility Determination—Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-75
Compatibility Determination—Fishing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-85
Table of Contents
vi
Bibliography
Chapter 1 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibl-1
Chapter 2 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibl-2
Chapter 3 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibl-2
Chapter 4 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibl-6
Glossary (including list of acronyms and abbreviations)
Glossary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glos-1
Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glos-15
Appendixes
Appendix A Species Known or Suspected on the Refuges and Their Conservation Status
Species Known or Suspected on the Refuges and Their Conservation Status . . . . . . A-1
Appendix B Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
Appendix C Refuge Operations Needs System (RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance
Management System (SAMMS)
Refuge Operation Needs System (RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance
Management System (SAMMS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1
Appendix D Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act Consultation Documents
Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act
Consultation Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1
Appendix E Staffing Chart
Staffing Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1
Appendix F Archaeological and Historical Resources Overview
Archaeological and Historical Resources Overview:
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1
Archaeological and Historical Resources Overview:
Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-9
Appendix G Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck and
Featherstone National Wildlife Refuges
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1
Summary of Comments Received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-3
Service Responses to Comments by Subject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-5
Appendix H Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1
Appendixes (cont.)
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
Figure E.1 Proposed Staffing for Potomac River National Wildlife
Refuge Complex (Mason Neck, Featherstone, and
Occoquan Bay Refuges) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Air Quality Index (AQI) Values and Related Health Concerns . . . . . . . 3-6
Table 3.2 Air Quality Index Statistics for Prince William and
Fairfax Counties for 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
Table 3.3 Virginia 2010 303(d) Impaired Waters (Category 5) Needing Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
Table 3.4 Maryland 2008 303(d) Impaired Waters (Category 5) Needing Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8
Table 3.5 Regional Population Forecasts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10
Table 3.6 Regional Environmental Justice Detailed Characteristics . . . . . . . . . 3-11
Table 3.7 Regional Environmental Justice Summary Characteristics . . . . . . . . . 3-11
vii
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge and
Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
List of Tables (cont.)
Table 3.8 Waterfowl Species using the Potomac River Focus Area. . . . . . . . . . 3-15
Table 3.9 Potomac River Refuge Complex Annual Budget from 2002-2009 . . . . . 3-18
Table 3.10 Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments to Fairfax County, Virginia
from 2003-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-25
Table 3.11 Characteristics of the Soils of Mason Neck Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-31
Table 3.12 Annual Mason Neck Refuge Deer Harvest Results (1998-2009) . . . . . 3-42
Table 3.13 Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments to Prince William County,
Virginia from 2003-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-45
Table 3.14 Characteristics of the Soils of Featherstone Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-49
Table 3.15 Featherstone Refuge Wetland Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-50
Table A.1 Mason Neck Refuge Birds of Conservation Concern. . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
Table A.2 Known or Suspected Reptiles and Amphibians of
Mason Neck Refuge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-6
Table A.3 Known or Suspected Mammals of Mason Neck Refuge . . . . . . . . . . A-8
Table A.4 Fish Species of Conservation Concern in Mason Neck Refuge Area . . A-9
Table A.5 Plants Found at Mason Neck Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-10
Table A.6 Featherstone Refuge Birds of Conservation Concern . . . . . . . . . . . A-14
Table A.7 Known or Suspected Reptiles and Amphibian on
Featherstone Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-20
Table A.8 Known or Suspected Mammals on Featherstone Refuge . . . . . . . . . A-22
Table A.9 Fish Species of Conservation Concern in Featherstone Refuge Area . A-24
Table A.10 Plant Species of Conservation Concern for
Featherstone Refuge Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-25
Table A.11 Butterfly species Known or Likely to Occur on the
Potomac River National Wildlife Refuge Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . A-26
Table A.12 Dragonfly and Damselfly Species Known or Likely to Occur on the
Potomac River National Wildlife Refuge Complex . . . . . . . . . . . A-29
Table C.1 Projects Currently Listed in, or Proposed for, the RONS Database for
Mason Neck and Featherstone Refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1
Table C.2 Projects Currently in, or Proposed for, the SAMMS Database for
Mason Neck and Featherstone Refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-2
List of Maps
Map 1.1 Potomac River National Wildlife Refuge Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
Map 1.2 Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge Boundary and
Existing Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3
Map 1.3 Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge Boundary and
Existing Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4
Map 1.4 Potomac River Refuge Complex and its Regional Location within the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9
Map 1.5 Potomac River Refuge Complex and its Regional Location within the
Tidal Potomac River Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10
Map 1.6 Potomac River Refuge Complex and its Socioeconomic Context . . . . . 1-11
Table of Contents
viii
List of Maps (cont.)
Map 3.1 Parks and Protected Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12
Map 3.2 Bald Eagle Nesting Sites and Concentration Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14
Map 3.3 Mason Neck Refuge Ownership Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21
Map 3.4 Mason Neck Refuge Topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-27
Map 3.5 Mason Neck Refuge General Land Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-28
Map 3.6 Mason Neck Refuge Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-30
Map 3.7 Mason Neck Refuge National Wetlands Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-33
Map 3.8 Featherstone Refuge Topography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-46
Map 3.9 Featherstone Refuge General Land Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-47
Map 3.10 Featherstone Refuge Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-48
Map 3.11 Featherstone Refuge National Wetlands Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-51
Map 4.1 Mason Neck Refuge Existing and Planned Public Use Features . . . . . 4-6
Map 4.2 Planned Woodmarsh Trail Improvements at Mason Neck Refuge . . . . 4-43
Map 4.3 Planned Public Use Features at Featherstone Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-57
Map B.1 Mason Neck Refuge Existing and Planned Public Use Features . . . . B-69
Map B.2 Mason Neck Refuge Planned Woodmarsh Trail Improvements . . . . B-70
Map B.3 Featherstone Refuge Planned Public Use Features. . . . . . . . . . . . . B-71
Map B.4 Occoquan Bay Refuge Public Use Features. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-72
ix
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Chapter 1
The Purpose of, and Need for, Action
■ Introduction
■ Document Organization
■ The Purpose of, and Need for, this Comprehensive Conservation
Plan
■ Regional Context and Project Analysis Area
■ The Service and Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding
Planning
■ Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project
■ Refuge Management Profiles
■ Vision Statements
■ Refuge Goals
Mason Neck Refuge
USFWS
Chapter 1. The Purpose of, and Need For, Action 1-1
Introduction
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, we) prepared this Comprehensive
Conservation Plan (CCP) for Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife
Refuge (Mason Neck Refuge; refuge) and Featherstone National Wildlife
Refuge (Featherstone Refuge; refuge) pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge
System Administration Act of 1966 (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 (EA),
required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
§ 4321 et seq.; 83 Stat. 852) was prepared concurrent with the draft CCP. The
decision to adopt this plan and its “Finding of No Significant Impact” are
included as appendix H.
Mason Neck and Featherstone Refuges, together with Occoquan Bay National
Wildlife Refuge (Occoquan Bay Refuge), comprise the Potomac River National
Wildlife Refuge Complex (Refuge Complex) in northern Virginia (map 1.1).
Mason Neck Refuge was established in 1969 as the first national wildlife refuge
specifically created to protect a federally listed endangered or threatened
species. The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), which was federally listed
as threatened in 1969 was, and continues to be, the focal species of concern on
the refuge. Due to successful recovery efforts throughout its range, the bald
eagle was officially removed from the Federal list of endangered and threatened
species in 2007. It continues to be protected, however, under other Federal laws
and by Virginia law. Mason Neck Refuge encompasses 2,277 acres of forest,
marsh, and riverine habitat along Occoquan Bay and the mainstem of the tidal
Potomac River (map 1.2).
Featherstone Refuge was established in 1979 with land acquired from the
District of Columbia. It was further expanded in 1992 with lands donated
by Prince William County. It presently encompasses 325 acres of marsh and
forested riverine habitat along the southwest edge of Occoquan Bay (map 1.3).
Its wetlands are important habitat for bald eagles, wading and waterbirds,
waterfowl, and other native species of conservation concern.
This document presents the combination of management goals, objectives, and
strategies that will guide the management decisions and actions on Mason Neck
and Featherstone Refuges over the next 15 years. It also helps Virginia natural
resource agencies, our conservation partners, local communities, and the public
understand our priorities and work with us to achieve common goals.
Introduction
Tim Williams
Bald eagle
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge and
Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1-2
Introduction
Map 1.1. Potomac River National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Chapter 1. The Purpose of, and Need For, Action 1-3
Introduction
Map 1.2. Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge Boundary and Existing Features
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge and
Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1-4
Introduction
Map 1.3. Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge Boundary and Existing Features
Chapter 1. The Purpose of, and Need For, Action 1-5
Document Organization
This CCP has six chapters and eight appendixes. Chapter 1 sets the stage for the
rest of the document by
■ describing the purpose of, and need for, a CCP and EA;
■ defining our planning analysis area;
■ presenting the mission, policies, and mandates affecting the development of the
plan;
■ identifying other conservation plans we used as references; and
■ clarifying the vision and goals that drive refuge management.
Chapter 2, “The Planning Process,” describes our planning process, including
public and partner involvement, and its compliance with NEPA regulations, and
identifies public issues or concerns that surfaced during plan development.
Chapter 3, “Existing Environment,” describes the two refuges’ regional and
local settings, physical attributes, habitats and species, and human-built
infrastructure.
Chapter 4, “Management Direction and Implementation,” presents the actions,
goals, objectives, and strategies that will guide our decisionmaking and land
management for each refuge. It also outlines the staffing and funding needed to
accomplish that management.
Chapter 5, “Consultation and Coordination with Others,” summarizes how the
public and our partners were involved in the planning process. Their continued
involvement is vital for the future management of the refuges.
Chapter 6, “List of Preparers,” credits this plan’s writers and contributors.
Eight appendixes provide additional supporting documentation and references:
■ Appendix A: Species Known or Suspected on the Refuges and Their
Conservation Status
■ Appendix B: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations
■ Appendix C: Refuge Operations Needs System (RONS) and Service Asset
Maintenance Management System (SAMMS)
■ Appendix D: Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act
Consultation Documents
■ Appendix E: Staffing Chart
■ Appendix F: Archaeological and Historical Resources Overview
■ Appendix G: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck and Featherstone National Wildlife Refuges
■ Appendix H: Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
Document Organization
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge and
Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1-6
The Purpose of, and Need for, this Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The purpose of this CCP is to provide strategic direction to meet the
management goals for each refuge, as detailed below. Other broad purposes
are to
■ best achieve the refuges’ establishment purposes and visions;
■ contribute to the missions of the Service and the National Wildlife Refuge
System (Refuge System);
■ adhere to Service policies and mandates;
■ address significant issues; and
■ incorporate sound principles of fish and wildlife science.
There are several reasons we identify a need for a CCP for these refuges.
First, Federal law— the Refuge Improvement Act—requires us to write a
CCP for every national wildlife refuge to help fulfill the mission of the Refuge
System. Also, new Service policies providing specific guidance on implementing
the Refuge Improvement Act have been developed since the refuges were
established. A CCP incorporates those policies, and further fulfills the need to
provide each refuge with specific strategic management direction for the next 15
years by
■ stating clearly the desired future conditions for refuge habitat, wildlife, visitor
services, staffing, and facilities;
The Purpose of,
and Need for, this
Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
Elizabeth Wunker/USFWS
White-tailed
deer
Chapter 1. The Purpose of, and Need For, Action 1-7
The Purpose of, and Need for, this Comprehensive Conservation Plan
■ explaining the reasons for management actions to State agencies, refuge
neighbors, visitors, and partners;
■ 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; and
■ justifying budget requests for staffing, operating, and maintenance funds.
In addition, both refuges lack master plans to accomplish the actions above in a
regional landscape and economy that has changed considerably since the refuges
were established. Additionally, pressures for public access have continued to
grow, and new ecosystem and species conservation plans bearing directly on
management of the two refuges have been developed.
Also, in recent years, we have developed strong partnerships vital for our
continued success, and we must convey our vision for the refuges to those
partners and the public.
Finally, we need CCPs to guide us in conserving Federal trust species along the
shoreline of the tidal Potomac River that are consistent with the overarching
vision of the Potomac River Refuge Complex.
All of these reasons 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 State natural resource agencies,
affected communities, individuals, organizations, our partners, and the public.
Goal 1. Protect, enhance, and restore the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of mature hardwood-mixed forests to support native
wildlife and plant communities, including species of conservation concern.
Goal 2. Protect, enhance, and restore the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of wetland habitats and shorelines to support native wildlife
and plant communities, including species of conservation concern.
Goal 3. Provide quality, compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities
with particular emphasis on interpretation, wildlife observation, and
photography.
Goal 4. Enhance efforts to promote awareness, understanding, and support of the
values of the refuge, the resources of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and the
mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Goal 5. Enhance efforts to protect and interpret refuge cultural resources.
Goal 1. Protect forest, wetland, and shoreline habitats to support native wildlife
and plant communities, including species of conservation concern.
Goal 2. Provide compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities to
increase the enjoyment and appreciation of the refuge’s resources to visitors and
nearby residents.
Goal 3. Promote awareness, understanding, and support of the values of the
refuge, the resources of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and the mission of the
National Wildlife Refuge System.
Mason Neck Refuge
Goals
Featherstone Refuge
Goals
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge and
Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1-8
Regional Context and Project Analysis Area
Early in the planning process we defined a regional context to identify a broad
expanse of landscape that potentially could influence or affect both refuges’
resources. The regional context (map 1.4) is the Chesapeake Bay and the portion
of the Chesapeake Bay watershed drained by the Potomac River.
Within the regional context, we also defined a project analysis area. The project
area is a smaller landscape within which more direct influences on both refuges’
natural, cultural, and visitor resources would occur. The project analysis area
(map 1.5) includes the following:
■ The local watershed of the three refuges in the Potomac River Refuge
Complex–the Middle Potomac–Anacostia–Occoquan subwatershed
■ The migratory bird conservation area defined by the Atlantic Coast Joint
Venture (ACJV) as the Tidal Potomac River focus area
■ The Lower Potomac River Important Bird Area (IBA) designated by the
National Audubon Society (NAS, 2007)
■ The Coastal Plain-Potomac Ecological Drainage Unit (EDU), defined by the
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) for conservation
of State aquatic species of concern (VDGIF, 2005)
The mainstem of the Potomac River is under the jurisdiction of Maryland.
Tributaries, embayments, and backwaters on the east side—outside of the
mainstem—such as Occoquan Bay, are under the jurisdiction of Virginia.
The socioeconomic context for both refuges is northern Virginia, which has
a geographic area of approximately 1,304 square miles and is home to over
2,000,000 residents (NVRC, 2010). Northern Virginia is a sub-area of both
the State of Virginia and the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. It borders
Maryland and Washington, D.C. along the Potomac River and is found at the
northeastern reaches of Virginia (map 1.6).
The Northern Virginia Regional Commission (NVRC) compiles a wide range
of information about the demographic, social, and economic characteristics of
the northern Virginia population.
The NVRC is a regional council
representing the local governments.
Its 14 members comprise 4 counties:
Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and
Prince William; 5 independent
cities: Alexandria, Fairfax,
Falls Church, Manassas, and
Manassas Park; and 5 incorporated
towns: Dumfries, Herndon,
Leesburg, Purcellville, and Vienna.
The NVRC’s Northern Virginia
Databook (2003) presents a range
of demographic information
including data on income, education,
taxes, employment, economics,
housing, and transportation. The
Northern Virginia Databook,
with data organized by city and
county, is available online from:
http://www.novaregion.org/
index.aspx?NID=227 (accessed
June 2011).
Regional Context and
Project Analysis Area
Socioeconomic Context
George Gentry/USFWS
Red-tailed hawk
Chapter 1. The Purpose of, and Need For, Action 1-9
Regional Context and Project Analysis Area
Map 1.4. Potomac River Refuge Complex and its Regional Location within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge and
Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1-10
Regional Context and Project Analysis Area
Map 1.5. Potomac River Refuge Complex and its Regional Location within the Tidal Potomac River Area
Chapter 1. The Purpose of, and Need For, Action 1-11
Regional Context and Project Analysis Area
Map 1.6. Potomac River Refuge Complex and its Socioeconomic Context
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge and
Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1-12
The Service and Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning
The Service is part of the Department of the Interior. Our 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 the following national natural resources:
■ Migratory birds and fish
■ Federally listed endangered or threatened species
■ Interjurisdictional fish
■ Wetlands
■ Certain marine mammals
■ National wildlife refuges
In addition to national wildlife refuges, the
Service 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/(accessed
June 2011), 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; accessed June 2011).
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 Clinton signed into law the Refuge Improvement Act. This 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
The Service and
Refuge System Policies
and Mandates Guiding
Planning
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and its Mission
The National Wildlife
Refuge System and its
Mission and Policies
Boundary marker on
Featherstone refuge
USFWS
Chapter 1. The Purpose of, and Need For, Action 1-13
The Service and Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning
This 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 Improvement Act also establishes a process
for determining compatibility of public uses on refuges and requires us to
prepare a CCP for each 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. These are a few noteworthy policies instrumental in developing
these CCPs.
Policy on the National Wildlife Refuge System Mission, Goals, and Purposes
This policy (601 FW 1; http://www.fws.gov/policy/601fw1.html [accessed
August 2011]) sets forth the Refuge System mission noted above, how it relates to
the Service mission, and explains the relationship of the Refuge System mission
and goals, and the purpose(s) of each unit in the Refuge System. In addition, it
identifies the following Refuge System goals:
■ Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, including
species that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.
■ Develop and maintain a network of habitats for migratory birds, anadromous
and interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations that is
strategically distributed and carefully managed to meet important life history
needs of these species across their ranges.
■ Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, and wetlands of national or
international significance, and landscapes and seascapes that are unique, rare,
declining, or underrepresented in existing protection efforts.
■ Provide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible, wildlife-dependent
recreation (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography,
and environmental education and interpretation).
■ Foster understanding and instill appreciation of the diversity and
interconnectedness of fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats.
This policy also establishes the following management priorities for the Refuge
System:
■ Conserve fish, wildlife, and plants, and their habitats.
■ Facilitate compatible, wildlife-dependent recreational uses.
■ Consider other appropriate and compatible uses.
Policy on Coordination and Cooperative Work with State Fish and
Wildlife Agencies
This policy (601 FW 7; http://www.fws.gov/policy/601fw7.html; [accessed
August 2011]) establishes procedures for coordinating and working cooperatively
with state fish and wildlife agency representatives on the management of units
within the Refuge System. The policy acknowledges that effective conservation
of fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats depends on the professional relationship
between managers at the State and Federal level. The policy also affirms the
unique expertise and role of State fish and wildlife agencies in the management
of fish and wildlife.
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge and
Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1-14
The Service and Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning
Concerning the preparation of CCPs, the policy specifically mentions that the
Service will consult with adjoining State landowners and State fish and wildlife
agencies, and will coordinate with relevant State plans for fish and wildlife and
their habitats, during development or revision of plans.
Policy on Refuge System Planning
This policy is detailed in three Service Manual chapters:
■ 602 FW 1 (Refuge Planning Overview); http://www.fws.gov/policy/602fw1.html
(accessed June 2011)
■ 602 FW 2 (Land Acquisition Planning); chapter has not been published yet
■ 602 FW 3 (Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process); http://www.fws.gov/
policy/602fw3.html (accessed June 2011)
The policy 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 mandates.
The details on preparing CCPs (602 FW 3) also provide guidance, systematic
direction, and minimum requirements for developing all CCPs, and provide
a decisionmaking 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.
Policy on Maintaining Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental
Health
This policy (601 FW 3; http://www.fws.gov/policy/601fw3.html; [accessed
June 2011]) 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
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.
Policy on Wildlife-Dependent Recreation
This policy (605 FW 1-7; http://www.fws.gov/policy/605fw1.html; [accessed
June 2011]) defines Service policies, strategies, and requirements concerning
the management of wildlife-dependent recreation programs within the Refuge
System. The Refuge Improvement Act establishes that “compatible wildlife-
Chapter 1. The Purpose of, and Need For, Action 1-15
The Service and Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning
dependent recreation is a legitimate and appropriate general public use of the
Refuge System.” The overarching goal of this policy is to enhance wildlife-dependent
recreation opportunities and access to quality visitor experiences
on refuges while managing refuges to conserve fish, wildlife, plants, and their
habitats. According to this policy, new and ongoing recreational uses should
help visitors focus on wildlife and other natural resources. These uses should
provide an opportunity to make visitors aware of resource
issues, management plans, and how the refuge contributes
to the Refuge System and Service missions. Thus, we only
allow wildlife-dependent recreation on a refuge after we
determine it is appropriate and compatible (see discussions
below). Six wildlife-dependent uses were identified in the
Refuge Improvement Act as being priority general public
uses of the Refuge System and should receive enhanced
consideration over non-priority uses. Those uses are:
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography,
and environmental education and interpretation.
Chapters within this policy present guiding principles for
each of these respective uses and provides guidance on how
to plan for, establish, conduct, and evaluate each program.
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; http://www.fws.gov/policy/603fw1.html; [accessed June 2011])
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. A required
form documents the decision. 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, or goals and 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.
Policy on Compatibility
This policy (603 FW 2; http://www.fws.gov/policy/603fw2.html [accessed
June 2011]) relates to the appropriateness policy. The refuge manager must first
find that a use is appropriate before undertaking a compatibility review of that
use. If the proposed use is not found appropriate, the refuge manager will not
allow the use and will not prepare a compatibility determination.
This policy and its regulations includes a detailed description of the process and
requirements for conducting compatibility reviews. Our summary follows:
Green heron
Lee Karney/USFWS
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge and
Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1-16
The Service and Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning
■ The Refuge Improvement Act and its regulations require an affirmative
finding by the refuge manager on the compatibility of a public use before it is
allowed 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.”
■ The act defines six wildlife-dependent uses that are to receive 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
specify the required maximum reevaluation dates, which is either 15 years for
wildlife-dependent recreational uses or 10 years for other uses.
■ However, the refuge manager may reevaluate the compatibility of any use
at any time, for example, sooner than its mandatory date, or even before the
CCP process is completed 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.
Other Mandates
Although Service and Refuge System policy, along with each refuge’s purposes,
provides the foundation for its management, there are other Federal laws,
executive orders, treaties, interstate compacts, and regulations on conserving
and protecting natural and cultural resources that also affect how we manage
refuges. A centralized library of Servicewide policies, executive orders, director’s
orders, and the “Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service” can be viewed at: http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest.html
(accessed June 2011).
Of particular note are 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 Refuge Improvement Act requires that the CCP for each refuge
identify its archaeological and cultural values. The 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; Public
Law 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 established detailed requirements for
issuance of permits for any excavation or removal of archaeological resources
from Federal or Indian lands. It also establishes civil and criminal penalties for
the unauthorized excavation, removal, or damage of any such resources; for any
trafficking in such resources removed from Federal or Indian 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.
Chapter 1. The Purpose of, and Need For, Action 1-17
The Service and Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning
■ The Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 469-469c; Public
Law 86-523), approved June 27, 1960 (74 Stat. 220), as amended by Public Law
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 (Secretary) whenever they find a Federal or Federal-assisted,
licensed, or permitted project may cause loss or destruction of
significant scientific, prehistoric, or archaeological data. The act authorizes use
of appropriated, donated, and/or transferred funds for the recovery, protection,
and preservation of such 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 amended by Public Law 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
designation, acquisition, administration, and protection of such sites. Among
other things, National Historic and Natural Landmarks are designated under
authority of this act. More than 30 national wildlife refuges contain such sites.
■ The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. § 470-470b,
470c-470n) Public Law 89-665, approved October 15, 1966 (80 Stat. 915), and
repeatedly amended, provides for preservation of significant historical features
(buildings, objects, and sites) through a grant-in-aid program to the states. It
established 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 also established an Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, which was made a permanent independent agency in Public
Law 94-422, approved September 28, 1976 (90 Stat. 1319), and created the
Historic Preservation Fund. Federal agencies are directed to take into account
the effects of their actions on items or sites listed or eligible for listing in the
National Register. At least 90 historic sites on national wildlife refuges have
been placed on the National Register.
The Service also owns and cares for museum properties. The most common are
archaeological collections, art, zoological and botanical collections, historical
photographs, and historic objects. 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 of 1990 and Federal
regulations governing Federal archaeological collections. Our program ensures
that Service collections will continue to be available to the public for education
and research.
Two other Federal resource laws are also important to highlight as they
are integral to developing a CCP. They can be viewed in their entirety at:
http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/resourcelaws.html (accessed June 2011).
■ The Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. § 1131-1136; PL 88-577) established
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
these areas unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness. The act
also directed the Secretary of the Interior, within 10 years, to review every
roadless area of 5,000 or more acres and every roadless island (regardless
of size) within National Wildlife Refuge and National Park Systems for
inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Service planning
policy requires we evaluate the potential for wilderness on refuge lands, as
appropriate, during the CCP planning process.
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge and
Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1-18
The Service and Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning
■ The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended, selects certain U.S.
rivers possessing remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife,
historic, cultural, or other similar values and preserves them in a free-flowing
condition and protects their local environments. Service planning policy
requires we evaluate the potential for wild and scenic rivers designation on
refuge lands, as appropriate, during the CCP planning process.
In the draft CCP/EA, Chapter 4 “Environmental Consequences,” evaluated this
plan’s compliance with the acts noted above, as well as the Clean Water Act of
1977 as amended (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.; PL 107-303), 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. The draft NEPA and the Council on
Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural
Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508).
Our mandates also include orders directed by the President, the Secretary, and
the Director of the Service. Several of the mandates of special importance to this
CCP include the following:
■ Presidential Executive Order 13443–Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and
Wildlife Conservation was issued on August 16, 2007. The purpose of this order
is to direct Federal agencies that have programs and activities affecting public
land management, outdoor recreation, and wildlife management, including
the Departments of Interior and Agriculture, to facilitate the expansion and
enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species
and their habitat. Federal agencies are directed to pursue certain activities
listed in the order, consistent with their missions. Those activities include
managing wildlife and wildlife habitats on public lands in a manner that
expands and enhances hunting opportunities, and working with state and
Tribal governments to manage wildlife and habitats to foster healthy and
productive populations and provide appropriate opportunities for the public to
hunt those species.
■ Presidential Executive Order 13508–Chesapeake Bay Protection and
Restoration (signed May 12, 2009). This order furthers the purpose of the
Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.), and other
laws “…to protect and restore the health, heritage, natural resources, and
social and economic value of the Nation’s largest estuarine ecosystem and the
natural sustainability of its watershed.” It recognizes the Chesapeake Bay as
“a national treasure constituting the largest estuary in the United States and
one of the largest and most biologically productive estuaries in the world.”
The order also establishes the development of a strategy for coordinated
implementation of existing programs and projects and development of an
annual action plan and accomplishment reports. It also requires collaboration
with state partners. The focus of the coordinated implementation plan will be
to address
1) water quality;
2) sources of pollution from agricultural lands and Federal lands and facilities;
3) protecting the bay’s resources as the climate changes;
4) expanding opportunities for public access;
5) conserving landscapes and ecosystems; and
6) the monitoring and accountability of activities.
■ Presidential Memorandum–America’s Great Outdoors (signed April 16, 2010).
This memorandum established the America’s Great Outdoors Initiative. The
initiative is a grassroots approach to protecting America’s lands and waters,
and connecting all Americans to their natural and cultural heritage. Its major
premise is that lasting conservation solutions should come from the American
Chapter 1. The Purpose of, and Need For, Action 1-19
The Service and Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning
people. The initiative empowers all Americans to share in the responsibility
for conserving, restoring, and providing better access to the Nation’s lands and
waters. The goals of the initiative are the following:
1) Reconnect Americans, especially children, to America’s rivers and
waterways, landscapes of national signifi cance, ranches, farms and forests,
great parks, and coasts and beaches by exploring a variety of efforts,
including
■ promoting community-based recreation and conservation, including local
parks, greenways, beaches, and waterways;
■ advancing job and volunteer opportunities related to conservation and
outdoor recreation; and
■ supporting existing programs and projects that educate and engage
Americans in our history, culture, and natural bounty.
2) Build upon state, local, private, and Tribal priorities for the conservation of
land, water, wildlife, historic, and cultural resources, creating corridors and
connectivity across these outdoor spaces, and for enhancing neighborhood
parks; and determine how the Federal Government can best advance those
priorities through public and private partnerships and locally supported
conservation strategies.
3) Use science-based management practices to restore and protect our lands
and waters for future generations.
■ Secretarial Order 3289 – Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on
America’s Water, Land, and Other Natural and Cultural Resources (issued
on September 14, 2009). This order
establishes a Departmentwide,
science-based approach to increasing
our understanding of climate change
and to coordinate an effective
response to its impacts on Tribes
and on the land, water, ocean, fish
and wildlife, and cultural heritage
resources that the Department
manages. The order requires a
“Climate Change Response Council”
that will execute a coordinated
Departmentwide strategy to increase
scientific understanding and the
development of adaptive management
tools to address the impact of
climate change on our natural and
cultural resources. The Council will
help coordinate activities within
and among Federal agencies. Land
management agencies are directed
to pursue appropriate activities to
reduce their carbon footprint, adapt
water management strategies to
address the possibility of a shrinking
water supply, and protect and manage land in anticipation of sea level rise,
shifting wildlife populations and habitats, increased wildland fire threats, and
an increase in invasive and exotic species.
Steve Maslowski/USFWS
Bald eagle
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge and
Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1-20
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project
The Service developed the Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) 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
its 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 to “identify species, subspecies, and
populations of all migratory nongame 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 entire U.S., including U.S. island
territories in the Pacific and Caribbean. The report encompasses three distinct
geographic scales: 1) National; 2) North American Bird Conservation Initiative
(NABCI) Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs); and, 3) the eight Service Regions.
This report lists priority bird species of conservation concern at each scale
which are primarily derived from assessment scores from several major
bird conservation plans: 1) the Partners in Flight North American Landbird
Conservation Plans; 2) the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan; and 3) 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 Federal 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 access the report at: http://www.fws.
gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/BCC2008/BCC2008.
pdf (accessed June 2011). This is one of the plans we used in identifying species of
concern in appendix A, and in developing management objectives and strategies
under goals 1 and 2.
Originally written in 1986, the NAWMP describes a 15-year strategy for the
U.S., Canada, and Mexico to restore and sustain waterfowl populations by
protecting, restoring, and enhancing habitat. The plan’s committee, including
representatives from all three countries, 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. You may access the report at: http://www.fws.gov/
birdhabitat/NAWMP/files/ImplementationFramework.pdf (accessed June 2011).
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
Chapter 1. The Purpose of, and Need For, Action 1-21
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project
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 policymakers who
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). The Refuge Complex lies in the
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 Complex lies within the plan’s “Lower Potomac
River—Virginia Sub-focus Area” (map 1.5). You can view the
plan online at: http://www.acjv.org/planning.htm (accessed
June 2011).
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.
American black ducks use the refuge during the winter and
migration, but are less common during their breeding season as their primary
breeding grounds are in Canada. The Black Duck Joint Venture Final Draft
Strategic Plan (USFWS/CWS 1993) resides online at: http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/
bdjv/ (accessed June 2011). We referred to both Joint Venture plans in developing
the management objectives and strategies under goals 1 and 2.
This plan covers the Mid-Atlantic/Southern New England BCR 30, which extends
from southern Maine to coastal Virginia, including the Chesapeake Bay. This
region 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 this region.
The purpose of the plan is to develop common regional goals for bird conservation
by integrating information from continental and regional bird conservation
initiatives and State wildlife action plans, such the U.S. Shorebird Conservation
Plan, the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, and the NAWMP (see
separate discussions of plans below). The specific goals are to
1) identify the highest priority bird species and their specifi c habitat needs and
threats;
2) delineate and defi ne geographic focus areas for priority species;
3) use conservation design methods and modeling approaches to refi ne
identifi cation of important geographic areas;
4) develop models to estimate population and habitat goals for priority species;
5) identify the highest priority monitoring and research needs for birds and
habitats;
Mid-Atlantic/Southern New
England Bird Conservation
Region (BCR 30)
Implementation Plan (2007)
Donna Dewhurst
Green-winged teal
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge and
Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1-22
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project
6) focus resources towards the highest priority birds and the habitats they
depend upon; and
7) create a communication platform encouraging dialogue on bird conservation
activities both within and between states and partners at the BCR scale.
To help achieve these goals, the plan lists 134 priority bird species for BCR
30 and identifies the region’s coastal beaches, wetlands, and forested upland
communities as the most important habitat types in need of protection.
Throughout the region, the greatest threats to the conservation of these species
and habitats are habitat degradation and loss, fragmentation, invasive species,
and human disturbance. The plan also
■ outlines activities and management actions thought to be most useful in
addressing these needs and threats;
■ highlights the most important geographic areas to focus conservation action on;
and
■ establishes a regional bird conservation initiative with partners across
the BCR 30 to communicate and coordinate conservation planning and
implementation.
For more information or to view the entire plan, please visit: http://www.acjv.org/
bcr30.htm (accessed June 2011). We used this plan to help develop objectives and
strategies for goals 1 and 2, and to create species of concern lists in appendix A.
This plan (Kushlan et al., 2002) is an independent partnership among individuals
and institutions interested in, or responsible for, conserving waterbirds 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
waterbirds 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 facilitates continentwide planning and monitoring, Federal, 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 (accessed June 2011). We referred to this plan as
we developed management objectives and strategies under goals 1 and 2, and to
create appendix A.
A partnership of organizations and individuals working to facilitate waterbird
conservation in the Mid-Atlantic/New England/Maritimes (MANEM) region of
the U.S. and Canada has developed this regional waterbird conservation plan.
Over 200 partners comprising the MANEM Waterbird Working Group compiled
and interpreted technical information on the region’s waterbird populations and
habitats, assessed the 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, policymakers, educators, and other supporters.
The MANEM region consists of Bird Conservation Regions 14 (Atlantic
Northern Forest) and 30 (Mid-Atlantic/Southern New England), and Pelagic
Bird Conservation Regions 78 (Northeast U.S. 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. You
can access the plan online at: http://www.waterbirdconservation.org (accessed
June 2011).
North American Waterbird
Conservation Plan
(Version 1, 2002)
Mid-Atlantic/New England/
Maritimes (MANEM)
Waterbird Conservation
Plan (2008)
Chapter 1. The Purpose of, and Need For, Action 1-23
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project
Seventy-four waterbird species use 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 4 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/
(accessed June 2011). We referred to this plan as we developed management
objectives and strategies under goals 1 and 2, and while compiling appendix A.
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
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 (accessed
June 2011).
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 (accessed June 2011). We
used both plans in developing our objectives and strategies for goals 1 and 2, and
while compiling appendix A.
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 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 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 protect bald eagles 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 benefi t 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/baldeagle.htm (accessed June 2011). We referred to these
guidelines as we developed management objectives and strategies for bald eagles
under goal 1.
U.S. Shorebird (2001, 2nd
edition) and North Atlantic
Regional Shorebird (2000)
Plans
National Bald Eagle
Management Guidelines
(2007)
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge and
Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1-24
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project
In 1990, 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 nongame 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 Bird Conservation Plan
(April 1999)
Our project area lies in Physiographic Area 44, the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain.
We referred to this plan as we developed our management objectives and
strategies under goals 1 and 2. The plan can be accessed at: http://www.blm.gov/
wildlife/pl_44sum.htm (accessed June 2011).
The plan includes objectives for the following habitat types and associated species
of conservation concern on the refuge:
■ Forested Wetland: cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulean), Swainson’s warbler
(Limnothlypis swainsonii), Kentucky warbler (Oporornis fromosus), Acadian
flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), yellow-throated vireo (Vireo flavifrons),
prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea), and Louisiana waterthrush
(Seiurus motacilla).
■ Mixed Upland Forest: cerulean warbler, wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina),
Kentucky warbler, Acadian flycatcher, worm-eating warbler (Helmitheros
vermivorum), eastern wood-pewee (Contopus virens), and Louisiana
waterthrush.
■ Fresh/Brackish Emergent Wetland: American black duck (Anas rubripes) and
king rail (Rallus elegans).
■ We used this plan to help develop objectives and strategies for goals 1 and 2,
and to create appendix A.
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 (Cygnus columbianus) 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 highlighted 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 online at: http://www.mdwfa.org/flyway.html (accessed June 2011).
Partners-in-Flight Bird
Conservation Plans
A Management Plan for
the Eastern Population of
Tundra Swans (July 2007)
Chapter 1. The Purpose of, and Need For, Action 1-25
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project
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.
The Refuge Complex’s tidal marsh and the surrounding shallow water habitats
contribute to this goal by providing staging and wintering habitat for tundra
swans. We consulted this plan and its recommended management actions as we
developed objectives and strategies under goal 2.
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 emphasized status assessments
using wintering ground survey information. In 1996, in response to dramatic
declines in the Atlantic Population (AP) Canada goose (Branta canadensis)
population and 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 2008
plan provides management guidelines to promote continued growth of the
AP goose population at sustained higher levels. It can be accessed online at:
http://www.mdwfa.org/flyway.html (accessed June 2011).
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 hunt, view, and otherwise 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. The Refuge
Complex provides staging and wintering habitat. We referred to this plan as we
developed management objectives and strategies under goal 2.
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 (Cygnus olor) 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 online at: http://www.mdwfa.org/flyway.html (accessed June 2011).
A Management Plan for
the Atlantic Population of
Canada Geese (March 2008)
Atlantic Flyway Mute
Swan Management Plan
(July 2003)
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge and
Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1-26
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project
We referred to this plan, as well as the Chesapeake Bay Program’s mute swan
plan (see below) as we developed management objectives and strategies for
dealing with this invasive species under goals 1 and 2.
This plan (USFWS, 2004) 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 of researchers, and Federal and state natural resource managers was
formed to develop a baywide regional mute swan management plan.
The goal of the plan is to manage the Chesapeake Bay population of mute swans
to a level that
■ minimizes the impacts on native wildlife, important habitats, and local
economies;
■ minimizes conflict with humans;
■ agrees with the Chesapeake Bay Program’s Chesapeake 2000 Agreement goals
for SAV and invasive species; and
■ agrees 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 online at: http://www.mdwfa.org/flyway.html
(accessed June 2011).
We consulted this plan as we considered management actions to control
mute swan. We describe those in Chapter 4 ���Management Direction and
Implementation.”
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 VDGIF in managing this species. The plan can be accessed at: http://
www.mdwfa.org/flyway.html (accessed June 2011).
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, utility industries, universities, herpetological organizations, research
laboratories, forest industries, and environmental consultants. Its five geographic
regions—Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Southwest, and Northwest—focus on
Mute Swan in the
Chesapeake Bay: A
Baywide Management Plan
(June 2004)
Atlantic Flyway Resident
Canada Goose Management
Plan (July 1999)
Partners in Amphibian
and Reptile Conservation,
National—State
Agency Herpetological
Conservation Report
(Draft 2004)
Chapter 1. The Purpose of, and Need For, Action 1-27
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project
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, part of the USGS Eastern Region
(http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/partners/; accessed June 2011). The next NHCR
will also integrate the list of species of conservation concern into each state’s
comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy (see below). We referred to the
latest draft NHCR plan in developing management objectives and strategies for
goals 1 and 2, and in developing appendix A.
The Service’s Fisheries Program’s primary mission is to work with others to
maintain self-sustaining, healthy populations of coastal and anadromous fish,
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), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), blueback herring (Alosa
aestivalis), Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus), horseshoe
crab (Limulus polyphemus), American eel (Anguilis rostrata), and menhaden
(Brevoortia tyrannus).
The Fisheries Program has played a vital role in conserving and managing fish
and other aquatic resources since 1871. Today, the Fisheries 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
U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service Fisheries Program,
Northeast Region
Strategic Plan 2009–2013
(January 2009)
John Mosesso, Jr., NBII
Eastern ribbon snake
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge and
Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1-28
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project
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 Fisheries Program is committed to working with partners to
1) protect the health of aquatic habitats;
2) restore fi sh and other aquatic resources; and
3) provide opportunities to enjoy the many benefi ts of healthy aquatic resources.
The Regional Fisheries Program Strategic 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/ (accessed June 2011).
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 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.
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
hydrologic unit. We used this ranking and have consulted with the Regional
Fisheries Program staff in developing aquatic objectives and strategies under
goal 2 and in creating appendix A “Species Known or Suspected on the Refuges
and Their Conservation Status.”
In 2002, Congress created the State Wildlife Grant Program (SWG) and
appropriated $80 million in grants 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 the state’s 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 needed to
develop a statewide “Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy” and
submit it to the National Advisory Acceptance Team by October 1, 2005. Each
plan needed 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 to “keep common species common.”
The Virginia Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (VDGIF, 2005),
more commonly referred to as the Virginia “Wildlife Action Plan” (WAP),
developed from that charge. The goal of this plan is to create a vision for
conserving Virginia’s wildlife and stimulate other states, Federal agencies,
and conservation partners to think strategically about their individual and
coordinated roles in prioritizing conservation.
Virginia Department of
Game and Inland Fisheries,
Virginia’s Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation
Strategy (2005)
Striped
bass
Kraft, C.E.,
D.M. Carlson, and
M. Carlson. 2006. Inland
Fishes of New York (Online),
Version 4.0. Department of Natural
Resources, Cornell University, and
the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation.
Chapter 1. The Purpose of, and Need For, Action 1-29
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project
In addressing the eight elements below, the Virginia WAP 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 CCPs. The
WAP was invaluable to us during our planning process because of the depth of
expertise and amount of public and partnership involvement that went into its
development. We used it in developing objectives and strategies for goals 1 and
2, and in developing appendix A. These are the eight elements required for state
WAPs:
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
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
8) Plans for involving the public in the development and implementation of plan
strategies
We also consulted the plans and resources below as we refined our management
objectives and strategies, especially those with a local context.
A Guide to the Conservation of Forest Interior Dwelling Birds in the Chesapeake
Bay Critical Area. Forest interior dwelling birds (FIDS) require large tracts of
forest for nesting, breeding, and foraging habitat. FIDS are a diverse group of
birds, including migratory songbirds, woodpeckers, hawks, and owls. Although
many of the FIDS species are still relatively common, populations of some of
these species are declining. The loss and fragmentation of forested habitats
are major threats to all FIDS species. As the Chesapeake Bay region becomes
increasingly more developed, the forests these species rely on are becoming
further fragmented.
The Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission’s, “A Guide to the Conservation
of Forest Interior Dwelling Birds in the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area,” contains
a list of the 25 FIDS species that breed in the Chesapeake Bay area, information
on how to identify the presence of FIDS habitat, and conservation guidelines on
how to manage for these species. The conservation guidelines focus on regional
Other Regional Information
Sources
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge and
Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1-30
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project
and local land use planning, site design guidelines for developers and landowners,
and ways to mitigate impacts on FIDS. This guide is available online at: http://
www.dnr.state.md.us/education/envirothon/wildlife/criticalareareg_FIDS.pdf
(Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission 2000; accessed June 2011). We used
this guide in identifying species of concern in appendix A.
Chesapeake Bay Program. The Chesapeake Bay Program (Bay Program) (http://
www.chesapeakebay.net/; accessed June 2011) is a unique regional partnership
directing and conducting the restoration of the bay since the signing of the
historic 1983 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. The 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 Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA); and participating advisory groups. Since its inception,
the Bay Program’s highest priority has been the restoration of the bay’s living
resources, including finfish, shellfish, bay grasses, 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. In April 2007, the Bay 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/
publication.aspx?publicationid=15548; accessed June 2011). 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 cleanup actions across the
entire watershed and allocate restoration efforts appropriately.
Potomac Conservancy. The mission of the Potomac Conservancy is to protect
the health, beauty, and enjoyment of the Potomac River and its tributaries. The
Potomac Conservancy’s primary focus is protection of water quality through land
protection and sound land use practices. Because clean water alone is not enough,
the Potomac Conservancy also works to preserve and restore the Potomac’s
scenic landscapes, and to enhance river-based recreational opportunities
(http://www.potomac.org/site/about-us/; accessed June 2011).
Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan of 2007. This plan, required by State
law, is a guide to decisionmaking about the built and natural environment by
the county’s Board of Supervisors and other agencies, such as the Planning
Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals. It is also a guide for county staff
and the public to use in the planning process.
Prince William County Comprehensive Plan of 2003 with Amendments of
2006. This Comprehensive Plan creates a vision for the future of Prince
William County. It is used as a guideline for evaluating and negotiating
development applications. Generally, development applications that fail to match
Comprehensive Plan goals and actions can be denied. The Comprehensive Plan
includes a map that shows planned land uses on a parcel-to-parcel basis. It also
lists specific goals and actions that are needed to make the vision a reality.
National Audubon Society’s Important Bird Area Program. The National
Audubon Society participates in a global IBA program which identifies areas that
are most important for maintaining bird populations and focuses conservation
efforts on protecting these sites. In the U.S., more than 1,200 IBAs in 40 states
have been identified. The Virginia Audubon chapters have established the
following goals for IBAs in the State:
Chapter 1. The Purpose of, and Need For, Action 1-31
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project
■ Identify, document, and publicly recognize Virginia’s most important areas for
birds.
■ Engage people in citizen science and avian conservation cooperative projects
with land managers to benefit birds and their habitats at IBAs.
■ Partner with others to bring conservation tools and resources to IBAs in need
of conservation.
■ Base all action on the best available scientific criteria.
The refuge lies in the Lower Potomac River IBA (map 1.5). This 281,134 acre
area includes the tidal fresh/brackish reach of the Potomac River extending
from Mathias Point to just above Fort Belvoir. It supports a variety of habitats
including emergent and forested wetlands, extensive tracts of upland hardwoods,
and a diversity of other upland habitats.
The upper tidal reach of the Potomac River has been the focus of intensive
ornithological observation for 200 years. Over this time period, the landscape
and bird community have changed dramatically. Currently, the area supports a
significant community of piscivorous (fish-eating) bird species, including one of
the largest great blue heron (Ardea herodias) colonies within the Mid-Atlantic
region, a dense breeding population of bald eagles, and both a summer and
winter concentration area for migrant bald eagles. The rich hardwood forests are
strategically important for local breeding populations of neotropical migrants,
as well as stopover areas for northern populations moving through the region
in the fall. The waterways support significant populations of waterfowl during
migration and winter. This IBA also includes one of only two known breeding
locations for the Bachman’s warbler (Vermivora bachmanii) in Virginia.
To learn more visit the Northern Virginia Audubon Society Web site at:
http://www.audubonva.org/index.php/important-bird-areas-iba (accessed
June 2011).
We also referred to the following species specific plans while developing
management goals, objectives, and strategies for both refuges.
Sensitive Joint-Vetch Recovery Plan; available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/
recovery_plans/1995/950929b.pdf (accessed June 2011)
American Shad and River Herring Fisheries Management Plan (spawning/
nurseries); available at: http://www.asmfc.org/(accessed June 2011)
Final Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon; available at: http://www.nmfs.
noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/sturgeon_shortnose.pdf (accessed June 2011)
Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Sturgeon and its amendments
and addendums; available at: http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/sturgeon/
fmps/fmps/sturgeonFMP.pdf (accessed June 2011)
American Eel Fisheries Management Plan and addendum; available at: http://
www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/eel/fmps/eelFMP.pdf (accessed June 2011)
Small Whorled Pogonia Recovery Plan; available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/
recovery_plans/1992/921113b.pdf (accessed June 2011)
Individual Species Plans
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge and
Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1-32
Refuge Management Profiles
Mason Neck Refuge was established in 1969 as the Nation’s first refuge specifically
established to protect a federally listed endangered or threatened species—the
bald eagle, which was federally listed as threatened until 2007. The refuge was
created under the authority of the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966,
the precursor to the current-day Endangered Species Act of 1973. From the initial
acquisition of 845 acres in 1969, Mason Neck Refuge has grown to 2,277 acres. This
includes 789 acres leased in 1982 for 60 years from the Northern Virginia Regional
Park Authority (NVRPA).
Featherstone Refuge was established under Public Law 91-499, approved
October 22, 1970 (84 Stat 1095). This law authorized the Secretary to acquire,
by purchase or exchange, portions of a tract of land in Prince William County,
Virginia (then being disposed of by the District of Columbia). As a prerequisite of
the transaction, both the Secretary and the District of Columbia had to mutually
agree that the lands were formally classified wetlands, or included adjacent lands
necessary to protect the natural features of the wetlands, and were worthy of
permanent protection. The purchase of the first 164 acres did not occur until 1979.
This was followed by a 161-acre gift from Prince William County in 1992 resulting
in the present 325-acre refuge.
In 1998, Mason Neck, Featherstone, and Occoquan Bay Refuges were organized
into the Potomac River National Wildlife Refuge Complex. The decision to
jointly administer the refuges was based on the proximity of the refuges and
the management complexity of Mason Neck and Occoquan Bay Refuges. This
change necessitated sharing staff and resources to address the management
requirements of all three refuges.
The refuges’ shared staff are based at Refuge Complex headquarters in
Woodbridge, Virginia. Mason Neck Refuge has its own maintenance compound
onsite. Featherstone Refuge has no onsite facilities and is maintained with
equipment located at Occoquan Bay Refuge. The Refuge Complex has six full-
Refuge Management
Profiles
Establishing Authority and
Purpose
Refuge Administration
Bill Wallen
Eagle Point Shelter at Mason Neck NWR
Chapter 1. The Purpose of, and Need For, Action 1-33
Refuge Management Profiles
time permanent staff members: the refuge manager, assistant refuge manager,
outdoor recreation planner, law enforcement officer, administrative assistant, and
maintenance worker. These positions have responsibilities throughout the Refuge
Complex. Additional permanent staff are recommended in this plan as depicted in
appendix E. The Refuge Complex also may employ seasonal, part-time, or term
appointments.
Occoquan Bay Refuge was established in 1998, combining land previously
acquired as Marumsco Refuge in 1972 and, later, military surplus lands. Its
642 acres include extensive grasslands interspersed with marshes and early
successional shrub and forest areas that support neotropical migratory birds
and grassland-dependent species. A separate CCP for Occoquan Bay National
Wildlife Refuge was completed in 1997 (USFWS, 1997). For further details on
this refuge and its management, please contact refuge headquarters staff or visit
the refuge Web site at: http://www.fws.gov/occoquanbay/index.html (accessed
June 2011).
Refuge planning policy (602 FW 3) lists more than 25 step-down management
plans that may be applicable on any given refuge. Those plans outline 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 also require additional NEPA analysis, public involvement, and
compatibility determinations before we can implement them.
The status of step-down plans on the refuges follows. This CCP document
incorporates, by reference, those plans that are up-to-date.
Step-down plans and annual updates completed for the Refuge Complex:
■ Chronic Wasting Disease (2006)
■ Avian Influenza (2006)
■ Safety (annually updated)
■ Emergency Action (annually updated)
■ Continuity of Operations (annually updated)
■ Hazard Communications (annually updated)
■ Hurricane (annually updated)
The following plan is completed for both Mason Neck and Featherstone Refuges:
■ Fire Management (2004; anticipate update in 2011)
The following plans will be completed:
■ Law Enforcement (in preparation for the Refuge Complex; anticipate
completion in 2011)
■ Habitat Management (HMP; will be done for each refuge)
■ Visitor Services (VSP; will be done for each refuge)
■ Integrated Pest Management (IPM; will be done for each refuge)
■ Inventory and Monitoring (IMP; will be done for each refuge)
■ Sign (will be done for each refuge)
In Chapter 4, “Management Direction and Implementation,” we prioritize the
development of the plans not yet completed. Additional plans may be required in
response to new information once implementation of the CCP is underway.
Refuge Operational Plans
(“Step-down” Plans)
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge and
Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1-34
Vision Statements
Very early in the planning process, our team developed the following vision
statements to establish a desired condition for the entire Refuge Complex, as
well as to provide a guiding management philosophy and convey Mason Neck and
Featherstone Refuges’ unique contribution to that overall vision.
Potomac River Refuge Complex Vision
The Potomac River National Wildlife Refuge Complex provides
exceptional forest, grassland, and wetland habitats for wildlife in
a dynamic, highly urbanized region of Northern Virginia. We will
maintain and enhance those quality habitats along the middle
tidal Potomac River for native wildlife, particularly bald eagles
and other species of conservation concern.
The proximity of the Refuge Complex to our Nation’s capital
provides unparalleled opportunities to demonstrate the
importance of the natural world in enhancing the quality of
human life and raise public awareness about the value of the
National Wildlife Refuge System. Through outreach, education,
and partnerships, we will foster stewardship of the living resources
of the tidal Potomac River and the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Visitors will have diverse opportunities for quality, compatible,
wildlife-dependent recreation.
Mason Neck Refuge Vision
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge is
dedicated to the protection of the bald eagle and exemplifies the
significant efforts, contributions, and successes of conservationists
in Virginia. The refuge will continue to protect and enhance
regionally important habitat for the bald eagle, migratory birds,
and native wildlife and plant species along the tidal Potomac
River. We will provide quality wildlife-dependent recreational
and educational opportunities, in particular, wildlife viewing and
photography. In cooperation with the other agencies in the Mason
Neck Management area, we will work to resolve resource issues on
the Mason Neck Peninsula.
Featherstone Refuge Vision
Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge provides valuable acres
of ‘wild woods and wetland’ which are rapidly disappearing
within this region of Virginia. The refuge will continue to protect
wetlands, bottomland hardwoods, and associated native wildlife
and plants in an otherwise highly urbanized setting along the tidal
Potomac River. Assuming access issues are resolved, the refuge
will provide limited, quality, wildlife-dependent recreational
opportunities, in particular, wildlife viewing and fishing.
In our discussion on the “purpose of, and need for, the proposed action” earlier
in this chapter, we presented the goals we developed for each refuge. Those goals
are based on our vision for each refuge, their respective establishment purposes,
the missions of the Service and the Refuge System, and the mandates, plans,
and conservation initiatives above. The goals are intentionally broad, descriptive
statements of purpose. They highlight elements of our vision for the refuge’s that
we will emphasize in future management. The biological goals take precedence;
but otherwise, we do not present them in any particular order. In chapter 4 we
outline the process by which these goals will be achieved.
Vision Statements
Refuge Goals
Tim Williams
Black-crowned night heron
The Planning Process
■ The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
■ Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
Chapter 2
Chapter 2. The Planning Process 2-1
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
Service planning policy (602 FW 3) establishes an eight-step planning process
that also facilitates our compliance with NEPA (figure 2.1). Our planning policy
and CCP training course materials describe those steps in detail. We followed
this process in developing the draft CCP/EA document and this final CCP.
Although the steps are described sequentially, the CCP planning and NEPA
processes are iterative. It is normal to cycle through some steps more than once
or to have several steps occurring simultaneously. For more information on
the CCP planning process, visit the Web site: http://policy.fws.gov/602fw3.html
(accessed June 2011).
Figure 2.1. The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
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
􀁴􇐀􀀁􀄀􀁑􅄀􀁓􅌀􀁆􄘀􀁑􅄀􀁂􄈀􀁓􅌀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀􀁅􄔀􀁊􄨀􀁔􅐀􀁕􅔀􀁓􅌀􀁊􄨀􀁃􄌀􀁖􅘀􀁕􅔀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀁅􄔀􀁓􅌀􀁂􄈀􀁇􄜀􀁕􅔀􀀁􀄀􀀤􂐀􀀤􂐀􀀱􃄀􀀁􀄀
􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀􀀯􂼀􀀦􂘀􀀱􃄀􀀢􂈀􀀁􀄀􀁅􄔀􀁐􅀀􀁄􄐀􀁖􅘀􀁎􄸀􀁆􄘀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀁂􄈀􀁕􅔀􀁊􄨀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀
􀁴􇐀􀀁􀄀􀁑􅄀􀁖􅘀􀁃􄌀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁄􄐀􀀁􀄀􀁄􄐀􀁐􅀀􀁎􄸀􀁎􄸀􀁆􄘀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀀁􀄀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀􀁓􅌀􀁆􄘀􀁗􅜀􀁊􄨀􀁆􄘀􀁘􅠀
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge and
Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
2-2
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
In 2006, we began developing a CCP for Mason Neck and Featherstone Refuges
by collecting information on both the refuges’ resources and initiating scoping
efforts to identify issues, concerns, and opportunities to address in the CCP. We
took the following actions to complete CCP planning steps A-F:
■ Held first CCP core team meeting in September 2006; drafted a vision
statement and identified preliminary issues.
■ Distributed separate planning newsletters for Mason Neck and Featherstone
Refuges in March 2007 to announce the kick-off of the CCP, notify the public
about the public scoping open house meetings, and share draft vision and goals
statements.
■ Held an open house on March 27, 2007 primarily focused on Featherstone
Refuge at the Potomac Community Library in Woodbridge, Virginia.
■ Held an open house on March 28, 2007 primarily focused on Mason Neck
Refuge at Gunston Elementary School in Lorton, Virginia.
■ Held a CCP core team meeting on March 29, 2007 to discuss the comments
made at the scoping meetings, to further define key issues, and to develop a
draft CCP schedule.
■ Hosted an interagency Visitor Services Program Review that included Service
experts and representatives from Mason Neck State Park, Virginia State
Parks, and VDGIF on May 15, 2007.
■ Hosted an interagency Biological Program Station Evaluation that included
Service experts and representatives from Mason Neck State Park, Virginia
State Parks, and VDGIF on May 16, 2007.
■ Published a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register on May 18, 2007 (72
FR 28066).
■ Held a series of CCP core team meetings to develop alternatives from March–
October 2007.
■ Distributed a planning newsletter in November 2007 summarizing public
scoping comments and describing the Visitor Services Program Review and
Biological Program Station Evaluation.
■ Evaluated Service fee-owned lands on the refuges for their possible inclusion
into the National Wilderness Preservation System. We completed that
evaluation in January 2008 with the recommendation that no lands on either
refuge qualified and that we not proceed with a wilderness study. Appendix D
in the draft CCP/EA shows the results of this evaluation.
■ Evaluated Service fee-owned waters on the refuges for their potential for
Federal Wild and Scenic River status. We completed that evaluation in
January 2008. Although the Potomac River borders Mason Neck Refuge, it
is not included within the refuge boundary. Mason Neck Refuge also borders
Belmont and Occoquan Bays whose waters are under the jurisdiction of the
Commonwealth of Virginia. Featherstone Refuge borders Occoquan Bay and
Neabsco Creek. No other river or river segments lie within the refuges.
Eligibility criteria for use by Federal agencies to evaluate rivers’ potential
for Wild and Scenic designation are recommended by the National Park
Service (NPS) and include consideration of outstanding remarkable values
for scenery, recreation, geology, or history. We consulted the National Rivers
Chapter 2. The Planning Process 2-3
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
Inventory database maintained by the National Park Service which documents
rivers and river segments that have been evaluated (http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/
programs/rtca/nri/; [accessed June 2011]). Several segments of the Potomac
River are identified as potentially eligible. The closest is the 24-mile segment
from Nice Memorial Bridge in Charles County, Maryland to Sandy Point in
Prince Georges County, Maryland. None of this segment occurs on refuge
lands. While we would consider being a part of a more detailed evaluation of
the Potomac River in proximity to the Refuge Complex, undertaking its full
evaluation is outside the scope of our planning process and we have determined
there was no need to initiate further analysis.
■ Analyzed management alternatives and wrote a draft CCP/EA from January
2008–September 2010.
■ Published a Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Federal Register on
January 5, 2011 (76 FR 582). That notice announced the release of the
draft CCP/EA document for a 49-day public review and comment from
January 5, 2011 to February 22, 2011.
■ Distributed the draft CCP/EA to all interested parties, contacted the media,
and posted it on our Web site during the January–February 2011 comment
period.
■ Hosted three public meetings in January 2011 in Woodbridge and Lorton,
Virginia.
■ Reviewed and summarized all comments received and wrote responses during
March-May 2011. Our response to public comments is in appendix G.
■ Submitted the final plan to our Regional Director for review in August 2011.
The Acting Regional Director determined a FONSI was warranted (see
appendix H), and that our analysis was sufficient to simultaneously issue a
decision adopting this CCP for the refuges.
■ We will announce the final decision by publishing a Notice of Availability in
the Federal Register, where we will also notify people of the availability of the
final CCP. We will also distribute a newsletter announcing his decision to all
contacts on our project list, as well as post that newsletter on our Web site.
These actions 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 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. As the
Refuge Improvement Act and Service policy stipulate, we will review and revise
CCPs at least every 15 years.
We define issues and concerns as “any unsettled