Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Rappahannock River Valley
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
December 2009
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Front cover:
Rappahannock River and Cat Point Creek
Brian Watts/The College of William and Mary
Dickcissel
John Drummond/USFWS
Wilna Tract grassland flowers
USFWS
Wilna Tract Pond
USFWS
Bald eagle
Steve Hillebrand/USFWS
Back cover:
Rappahannock River and Cat Point Creek
Brian Watts/The College of William and Mary
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting,
and enhancing fi sh, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefi t of the American people.
The Service manages the 150-million acre National Wildlife Refuge System comprised of more than 550
national wildlife refuges and thousands of waterfowl production areas. It also operates 70 national fi sh
hatcheries and 81 ecological services fi eld stations. The agency enforces Federal wildlife laws, manages
migratory bird populations, restores nationally signifi cant fi sheries, conserves and restores wildlife
habitat such as wetlands, administers the Endangered Species Act, and helps foreign governments with
their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Assistance Program which distributes hundreds
of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fi shing and hunting equipment to state wildlife agencies.
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long term guidance for management decisions and set forth
goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify the Service’s best
estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially
above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program
prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffi ng increases, operational
and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
This blue goose, designed by
J.N. “Ding” Darling, has become
the symbol of the National Wildlife
Refuge System.
Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlfe Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
December 2009
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Submitted by:
___________________________________________________ __________________________
Joseph McCauley Date
Project Leader
Eastern Virginia Rivers Refuge Complex
Concurrence by:
___________________________________________________ __________________________
Daryle Lons Date
Refuge Supervisor, South
National Wildlife Refuge System
___________________________________________________ __________________________
Anthony D. Legér Date
Assistant Regional Director
National Wildlife Refuge System
Approved by:
___________________________________________________ __________________________
Marvin E. Moriarty Date
Regional Director, Region 5
Abstract i
Abstract
Rappahannock River Valley
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
December 2009
Abstract
Administrative
U.S. Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Marvin Moriarty, Regional Director, Region 5
Project Leader
Eastern Virginia Rivers Refuge Complex
P. O. Box 1030
336 Wilna Road
Warsaw, VA 22572-1030
Phone: 804/333-1470
FAX: 804/333-3396
Email: fw5rw_evrnwr@fws.gov
Web: www.fws.gov/northeast/rappahannock
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the 7,711 acre Rappahannock
River Valley National Wildlife Refuge is the culmination of a planning effort
involving several Virginia state agencies, local partners, refuge neighbors, private
landowners, the Rappahannock Wildlife Refuge Friends Group, and the local
community. This CCP establishes 15-year management goals and objectives for
wildlife and habitats, public use, and administration and facilities.
Under this plan, we make improvements to our biological and public use programs.
We prioritize our management activities for wildlife and habitats and the visitor
services we provide in order to be more effective and efficient with our resources.
We will improve our outreach and visibility on the refuge and in nearby communities
through new or enhanced partnerships. We will also continue to work hard with our
land conservation partners to help identify and protect valuable wildlife habitats.
Finally, we will employ an adaptive management approach that includes adjusting
our activities as results from management actions become better understood. This
flexibility is especially important as we face ecological uncertainties, such as the
predicted impacts of climate change.
Type of action:
Lead agency:
Responsible official:
For further information:
iii
Rappahannock River Valley
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
“On the Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge, birds will raise
their young in native habitats of fi eld, forest, and marsh. They will fi nd rest and
nourishment during migration and a haven in winter. We will manage refuge lands
and waters with an emphasis on species whose populations have declined, assisting
them on the road to recovery.
“In partnership with others, we will contribute to the communities where we
exist, helping renew the health and vitality of the Rappahannock River and the
Chesapeake Bay. We will complement the rich traditions of hunting, fi shing,
forestry and agriculture on Virginia’s Northern Neck and Middle Peninsula.
“The refuge will serve as an outdoor classroom, where students of all ages will
study nature’s complexity, contributing to our understanding and appreciation of
the natural world and the National Wildlife Refuge System. All those who visit will
fi nd enjoyment in the presence of healthy and abundant fi sh, wildlife, and plants,
and will leave with a renewed personal commitment to land conservation and
stewardship.”
Refuge Vision
Statement
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Table of Contents
Table of Contents v
Chapters
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Refuge Vision Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Chapter 1 Purpose of and Need For Action
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
The Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3
The Service and the Refuge System: Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning . . . . . 1-4
The National Wildlife Refuge System and its Mission and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-11
Refuge Establishing Purposes and Land Acquisition History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-19
Refuge Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-20
Refuge Operational Plans (“Step-down” Plans). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-20
Refuge Vision Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-22
Refuge Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-22
Chapter 2 The Planning Process
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
Leading Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
Chapter 3 Existing Environment
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
The Physical Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
The Cultural Landscape Setting and Land Use History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
Current Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8
Air Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9
Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10
The Regional Socio-Economic Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15
Refuge Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-16
Special Use Permits, including Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21
Refuge Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23
Refuge Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39
Refuge Visitor Services Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-58
Archaeological and Historical Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-61
Chapter 4 Management Direction and Implementation
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
Summary by Major Program Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
General Refuge Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-30
Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
Planning to Protect Land and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
Partners Involved in Refuge Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3
Contact Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4
Planning Team. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4
Other Service Program Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
Other Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6
Table of Contents
vi Table of Contents
Appendixes
Appendix A Species Known or Suspected on the Refuge, Including Species of Conservation Concern
Table A.1. Birds of Conservation Concern for Rappahannock River Valley National
Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
Table A.2. Species List for Rappahannock River Valley Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-5
Table A.3. Conservation List and Agency, Tier Categories, and Definition. . . . . . . . . A-30
Appendix B Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations
Appendix C Staffing Chart
Staffing Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1
Chapters (cont.)
Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations
Compatibility Determinations for Priority Public Uses:
Environmental Education, Wildlife Observation, Interpretation and Photography. . . . B-1
Public Deer Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-21
Recreational Fishing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-29
Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations for Other Uses:
Cooperative Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-41
Firewood Cutting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-59
Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-67
Retrieval of Hunting Dogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-85
Uses Found to be “Not Appropriate”:
Bicycling Off-road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-97
Camping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-101
Dog Training and Field Trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-105
Horseback Riding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-109
Jogging Off-road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-113
Pets on Refuge Roads and Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-117
Picnicking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-121
Swimming / Sunbathing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-125
Use of All-terrain Vehicles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-129
Use of Pursuit Dogs for Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-133
Glossary (including list of acronyms)
Glossary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glos-1
Acronyms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glos-23
Bibliography
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibl-1
Table of Contents
Table of Contents vii
Appendixes (cont.)
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process and its
Relationship to the National Environmental Policy Act . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
Appendix D Refuge Operations Needs (RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management Systems (SAMMS)
Refuge Operations Needs (RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management
Systems (SAMMS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1
Appendix E National Historic Preservation Act Consultation
National Historic Preservation Act Consultation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1
Appendix F Endangered Species Act Consultation
Endangered Species Act Consultation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1
Appendix G Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment for the Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1
Summary of Comments Received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-2
Service Responses to Comments by Subject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-4
Attachment 1— Letter ID Numbers and Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-23
Appendix H Finding of No Significant Impact
Finding of No Significant Impact. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1
List of Tables
Table 1.1 History of land acquisition at the Rappahannock River Valley refuge
through September 30, 2007. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-20
Table 3.1 Refuge volunteer hours, 2004–2008. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20
Table 3.2 Sample of special use permits approved since 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21
Table 3.3 Summary and characteristics of the four most prevalent soil types
on refuge-owned tracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-24
Table 3.4 Present number of acres of each refuge habitat type . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-26
Table 3.5 Invasive plants in upland terrestrial habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-38
Table 3.6 BCR 30 waterfowl priority species on the refuge or project area. . . . . 3-44
Table 3.7 BCR 30 shorebird priority species on the refuge or project area . . . . . 3-46
Table 3.8 BCR 30 waterbird and marsh bird priority species on the refuge
or project area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-47
Table 3.9 Common fisheries resources in the Rappahannock River and
their priority in the Virginia Wildlife Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-49
Table 3.10 Twelve species regularly counted on anuran call surveys . . . . . . . . . 3-54
Table 3.11 Native bee species documented during native bee survey. . . . . . . . . 3-57
Table 3.12 Number of refuge visitors by activity in 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-58
Table A.1 Birds of Conservation Concern for Rappahannock River Valley
National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
Table A.2 Species List for Rappahannock River Valley Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-5
Table A.3 Conservation List and Agency, Tier Categories, and Definition . . . . . A-30
Table D.1 Proposed Refuge Operations Needs Projects (RONS) for
Rappahannock River Valley Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1
Table D.2 Service Asset Maintenance Management Systems (SAMMS)
projects for Rappahannock River Valley Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1
Table of Contents
viii Table of Contents
List of Maps
Map 1.1 Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge and its Regional
Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
Map 1.2 Rappahannock River Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5
Map 3.1 Ecological Systems on or near the Rappahannock River Valley
National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-25
Map 3.2 Habitat types on the Styer/Bishop and Port Royal Unit Tracts . . . . . . . 3-27
Map 3.3 Habitat types on Toby’s Point and Mothershead Tracts . . . . . . . . . . . 3-28
Map 3.4 Habitat Types on the Peter Tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-29
Map 3.5 Habitat types on Wilna and Wright Tracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-30
Map 3.6 Habitat Types on Tayloe Tract and Menokin Easement . . . . . . . . . . . 3-31
Map 3.7 Habitat types on Hutchinson and Thomas Tracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-32
Map 3.8 Habitat Types on the Island Farm, Wellford and Rowland Tracts and
Wellford Easement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-33
Map 3.9 Habitat Types on the Laurel Grove Tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-34
Map 3.10 Lower Rappahannock River Important Bird Area (IBA) . . . . . . . . . . . 3-41
Map 4.1 Public Use on Port Royal Unit (Burns and Long Tracts) . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
Map 4.2 Public Use on the Wilna Tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4
Map 4.3 Public Use on the Tayloe Tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
Map 4.4 Public Use on the Hutchinson Tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6
Map 4.5 Public Use on the Laurel Grove Tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7
Map 4.6 Public Use on the Wellford Tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8
Map 4.7 1995 Final Environmental Assessment Focus Areas, including the
Farnham Creek Focus Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12
Map B.1 Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge and its
Regional Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-13
Map B.2 Public Use on Port Royal Unit (Burns and Long Tracts) . . . . . . . . . . B-14
Map B.3 Public Use on the Wilna Tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-15
Map B.4 Public Use on the Tayloe Tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-16
Map B.5 Public Use on the Hutchinson Tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-17
Map B.6 Public Use on the Laurel Grove Tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-18
Map B.7 Public Use on the Wellford Tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-19
Map B.8 Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge and its
Regional Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-40
Map B.9 Tayloe cropped acres 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-57
Map B.10 Tayloe cropped fields post 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-58
Chapter 1
Purpose of and Need For Action
■ Introduction
■ The Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action
■ The Service and the Refuge System: Policies and
Mandates Guiding Planning
■ The National Wildlife Refuge System and its Mission and
Policies
■ Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Proposed
Action
■ Refuge Establishment Purposes and it’s Land Acquisition
History
■ Refuge Administration
■ Refuge Operational Plans (“Step-down” Plans)
■ Refuge Vision Statement
■ Refuge Goals
USFWS
Sunset over the Rappahannock River
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need For Action 1-1
Introduction
The purposes for establishing the Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife
Refuge (refuge) are to conserve and protect fi sh and wildlife resources, including
endangered and threatened species and wetlands. Refuge habitats include
freshwater tidal marsh, forested swamp, upland deciduous forest, mixed pine
forest, and managed grassland.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, we, our) purchased the fi rst tract
of land for the refuge in 1996. By September 30, 2007, it comprised 7,711 acres.
Within its 268,000-acre approved acquisition boundary (Service 1995), we are
authorized to purchase up to 20,000 acres in conservation easement or fee title.
That approved boundary lies on either side of the Rappahannock River, including
parts of Lancaster, Middlesex, Richmond, Essex, Caroline, Westmoreland, and
King George counties (see map 1.1).
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Rappahannock River Valley
National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) was prepared pursuant to the National Wildlife
Refuge System Administrative Act of 1996, as amended by the National Wiildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 6688dd et seq.; Refuge
Improvement Act). An environmental assessment (EA), required by the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), was prepared with the draft CCP.
This fi nal CCP presents the combination of management goals, objectives, and
strategies that we believe will best achieve our vision and goals for the refuge;
contribute to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System);
achieve the refuge purposes; fulfi ll legal mandates; address key issues; incorporate
sound principles of fi sh and wildlife management, and serve the American public.
This CCP will guide management decisions and actions on the refuge over the next
15 years. It will also help us communicate our priorities to the Commonwealth of
Virginia’s natural resource agencies, our conservation partners, local communities,
and the public.
Chapter 1, “The Purpose of and Need for Action,” explains the purpose of and need
for preparing a CCP, and sets the stage for four subsequent chapters and eight
appendixes. Specifi cally, chapter 1:
■ defi nes our planning analysis area,
■ presents the mission, policies and mandates affecting the development of the
plan,
■ identifi es other conservation plans we used as references,
■ lists the purposes for which the refuge was established and its land acquisition
history, and
■ clarifi es the vision and goals that drive refuge management.
Chapter 2, “The Planning Process,” describes the planning process we followed,
including public and partner involvement in developing this fi nal CCP. Chapter 2
also
■ describes our compliance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
regulations, and
■ identifi es public issues or concerns that surfaced as we developed the plan.
Chapter 3, “The Existing Environment,” describes the physical, biological, and
human environments of the refuge.
Introduction
1-2 Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need For Action
Introduction Map 1.1
Map 1.1. Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge and its Regional Setting
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need For Action 1-3
The Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action
Chapter 4, “Management Direction and Implementation,” presents the goals,
objectives, strategies, and actions that will guide our decision-making and
land management. It also outlines the and funding needed to accomplish that
management.
Chapter 5, “Consultation and Coordination with Others,” summarizes how we
involved the public and our partners in the planning process. Their involvement is
vital for the future management of this refuge and all national wildlife refuges.
Eight appendixes, a glossary with acronyms, and a bibliography of literature cited
provide additional documentation and references to support our narratives and
analysis.
We developed a fi nal CCP for the refuge that, in the Service’s best professional
judgment, best achieves the purposes, vision, and goals of the refuge; contributes
to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System; adheres to Service policies
and other mandates; addresses identifi ed issues of signifi cance; and, incorporates
sound principles of fi sh and wildlife science.
The purpose of adopting a CCP for this refuge is to accomplish the following goals:
Goal 1. Contribute to the biological diversity of the mid-Atlantic region by
protecting, enhancing, and restoring the refuge’s upland habitats, with an
emphasis on breeding, migrating, and wintering birds.
Goal 2. Maintain the long-term biological integrity of riparian habitats along the
Rappahannock River and its tributaries for bald eagles and other migratory birds.
Goal 3. Maintain and enhance the biological diversity and environmental health
of tidal and non-tidal wetlands to benefi t Federal listed species, waterfowl, other
migratory birds, fi sh and shellfi sh, reptiles, and amphibians.
Goal 4. Promote enjoyment and stewardship of our Nation’s natural resources
by providing high-quality, wildlife-dependent recreational and educational
opportunities on refuge lands and waters.
Goal 5. Communicate and collaborate with local communities, Federal and state
agencies, and conservation organizations throughout the lower Rappahannock
River watershed to promote natural resource conservation and the mission of the
Refuge System.
The need for a CCP on this refuge is manifold. First, the Improvement Act
requires us to write CCPs for all national wildlife refuges by 2012 to help fulfi ll
the mission of the Refuge System. Also, new Service policies providing specifi c
guidance on implementing the Improvement Act have been developed since the
refuge was established. A CCP incorporates those policies, and develops strategic
management direction for the refuge for 15 years, by
■ stating clearly the desired future conditions for refuge habitat, wildlife, visitor
services, staffi ng, and facilities;
■ explaining concisely to state agencies, refuge neighbors, visitors, partners, and
other stakeholders the reasons for management actions;
■ ensuring that refuge management conforms to the policies and goals of the
Refuge System and is consistent with legal mandates;
■ ensuring that present and future public uses are appropriate and compatible;
The Purpose of and
Need for the Proposed
Action
Chapter 1 1-4 . Purpose of and Need For Action
■ providing long-term continuity and consistency in management direction; and,
■ justifying budget requests for staffi ng, operating and maintenance funds.
In addition, other needs are manifest. This refuge lacks a master plan to
implement that strategic management direction and guide our decisions. The
environment of the refuge has changed considerably since 1996. Most notably, the
refuge grew to its present size. The economy and patterns of land use and land
ownership in local communities are changing. The pressures for public use and
access have continued to increase. New ecosystem and species conservation plans
have developed that bear directly on refuge management. The priority of habitat
management and restoration to control invasive plants has grown. We also must
evaluate our administrative and visitor facilities, including their locations, to ensure
the best customer service possible. Finally, as responsible stewards of Federal
lands, conveying our vision and priorities for the refuge to our partners, local
communities, and interested and affected individuals is imperative.
The regional context for this CCP is the Rappahannock River watershed (map 1.2).
The Rappahannock River is part of the of the Chesapeake Bay/Susquehanna River
ecosystem. The main stem of the Rappahannock River originates in Chester Gap,
a mountainous region near Front Royal, Virginia, at an elevation of 1,350 feet. The
Rapidan River joins it in the Piedmont, and they continue through the western
side of the coastal plain before reaching the Chesapeake Bay. The entire journey
is 185 miles from source to mouth. The watershed of the two rivers combined
comprises about 2 million acres.
As part of the Department of the Interior, the Service administers the Refuge
System. The Service mission is “Working with others, to conserve, protect, and
enhance fi sh, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefi t of
the American people.”
Congress entrusts to the Service the conservation
and protection of these national natural resources:
migratory birds and fi sh, Federal-listed endangered
or threatened species, inter-jurisdictional fi sh,
wetlands, certain marine mammals, and national
wildlife refuges. We also enforce Federal wildlife
laws and international treaties on importing and
exporting wildlife, assist states with their fi sh and
wildlife programs, and help other countries develop
conservation programs.
The Service Manual, http://www.fws.gov.directives/
direct.html, contains the standing and continuing
directives on implementing our authorities,
responsibilities, and activities. We publish 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 at http://
www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/index.html).
Regional Context
The Service and
the Refuge System:
Policies and
Mandates Guiding
Planning
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and its Mission
Accessible fishing pier on the Hutchinson tract
USFWS
The Service and the Refuge System: Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need For Action 1-5
Map 1.2. Rappahannock River Watershed
Map 1.2 The Service and the Refuge System: Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning
Chapter 1 1-6 . Purpose of and Need For Action
The Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands and waters set aside
specifi cally 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, fi sh, observe and photograph wildlife, or participate in
environmental education and interpretation on refuges.
In 1997, President Clinton signed into law the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act. That Act establishes a unifying mission for the Refuge System
and a new process for determining the compatibility of public uses on refuges,
and requires us to prepare a CCP for each refuge. The act states that the Refuge
System must focus on wildlife conservation. It also states that the mission of the
Refuge System, coupled with the purpose(s) for which each refuge was established,
will provide the principal management direction on that refuge. The mission of the
Refuge System is
“to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fi sh, wildlife, and plant
resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefi t of present
and future generations of Americans.”— National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act; Pub.L. 105–57
The Refuge Manual contains policy governing the operation and management
of the Refuge System that the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual does not cover,
including technical information on implementing refuge polices and guidelines
on enforcing laws. You can review the Refuge Manual at refuge headquarters.
These are a few noteworthy policies instrumental in developing this CCP.
You may view them on the Web at http://www.fws.gov/policy/manuals/part.
cfm?series=600&seriestitle=LAND%20USE%20AND%20MANAGEMENT%20
SERIES. Highlights of some of these policies follow.
This policy (601 FW 1) 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 identifi es the following Refuge System goals.
■ Conserve a diversity of fi sh, wildlife, and plants;
■ Develop and maintain a network of habitats;
■ Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, and wetlands that are unique
within the United States;
■ Provide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible, wildlife-dependent
recreation; and,
■ Help to foster public understanding and appreciation of the diversity of fi sh,
wildlife, and plants and their habitats.
This policy also establishes management priorities for the Refuge System.
■ Conserve fi sh, wildlife, and plants and their habitats;
The National Wildlife
Refuge System and its
Mission and Policies
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and its Mission
Policy on the National
Wildlife Refuge System
Mission, Goals and
Purposes
The National Wildlife Refuge System and its Mission and Policies
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need For Action 1-7
■ Facilitate compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses; and,
■ Consider other appropriate and compatible uses.
This policy (602 FW 1, 2, 3) establishes the requirements and guidance for Refuge
System planning, including CCPs and step-down management plans. It states
that we will manage all refuges in accordance with an approved CCP that, when
implemented, will help
■ achieve refuge purposes;
■ fulfi ll 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 applicable laws, mandates, and policies.
That planning policy provides step-by-step directions and identifi es the minimum
requirements for developing all CCPs. Among them, we are to review any existing
special designation areas such as wilderness and wild and scenic rivers, specifi cally
address the potential for any new special designations, conduct a wilderness
review, and incorporate a summary of that review into each CCP (602 FW 3).
Federal law and Service policy provide the direction and planning framework for
protecting the Refuge System from inappropriate, incompatible or harmful human
activities and ensuring that visitors can enjoy its lands and waters. This policy
(603 FW 1) provides a national framework for determining appropriate refuge
uses to prevent or eliminate those that should not occur in the Refuge System.
It describes the initial decision process the refuge manager follows when fi rst
considering whether to allow a proposed use on a refuge. An appropriate use must
meet at least one of the following four conditions.
1) The use is a wildlife-dependent
recreational
use as identifi ed in the
Improvement Act.
2) The use contributes
to fulfi lling the refuge
purpose(s), the Refuge
System mission, or goals
or objectives described
in a refuge management
plan approved after
October 9, 1997, the date
the Improvement Act
became law.
3) The use follows state regulations for the take of fi sh and wildlife.
4) The use has been found to be appropriate after concluding a specifi ed fi ndings
process using 10 criteria.
You may view that policy on the Web at http://www.fws.gov/policy/library/06-5645.pdf.
Policy on Refuge System
Planning
Policy on the
Appropriateness of Refuge
Uses
Fall on the refuge
USFWS
The National Wildlife Refuge System and its Mission and Policies
Chapter 1 1-8 . Purpose of and Need For Action
This policy (603 FW 2) complements the appropriateness policy. Once a
refuge manager fi nds a use appropriate, they conduct a further evaluation
through a compatibility determination assessment. The direction in 603 FW 2
provides guidelines for determining compatibility of uses and procedures for
documentation and periodic review of existing uses. Highlights of the guidance in
that chapter follows:
■ The Refuge Improvement Act and its regulations require an affi rmative fi nding
by the refuge manager on the compatibility of a public use before we allow it on a
national wildlife refuge.
■ A compatible use is one “that will not materially interfere with or detract from
the fulfi llment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the
refuge.”
■ The act defi nes six wildlife-dependent uses that are to receive enhanced
consideration on refuges: “hunting, fi shing, wildlife observation and
photography, and environmental education and interpretation.”
■ The refuge manager may authorize those priority uses on a refuge when they
are compatible and consistent with public safety.
■ When the refuge manager publishes a compatibility determination, it will
stipulate the required maximum reevaluation dates: 15 years for wildlife-dependent
recreational uses; or, 10 years for other uses.
■ However, the refuge manager may reevaluate the compatibility of a use at
any time: for example, sooner than its mandatory date, or even before we
complete the CCP process, if new information reveals unacceptable impacts or
incompatibility with refuge purposes (603 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.
This policy (605 FW 1) of the Service manual presents specifi c guidance on
implementing a quality, wildlife-dependent recreation program. “Quality” is
defi ned as a program that
1) promotes safety of participants, other visitors, and facilities;
2) promotes compliance with applicable laws and regulations and responsible
behavior;
3) minimizes or eliminates confl ict with fi sh and wildlife population or habitat
goals or objectives in an approved plan;
4) minimizes or eliminates confl icts with other compatible wildlife-dependent
recreation;
5) minimizes confl icts with neighboring landowners;
6) promotes accessibility and availability to a broad spectrum of the American
people;
7) promotes resource stewardship and conservation;
8) promotes public understanding and increases public appreciation of America’s
natural resources and our role in managing and conserving these resources;
Policy on Compatibility
Policy on Wildlife-dependent
Public Uses
The National Wildlife Refuge System and its Mission and Policies
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need For Action 1-9
9) provides reliable/reasonable opportunities to experience wildlife;
10) uses facilities that are accessible to people and blend into the natural setting;
and
11) uses visitor satisfaction to help to defi ne and evaluate programs.
This policy (601 FW 3) 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 fi sh, 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 components of the environment. It
also provides guidelines for dealing with external threats to the biological integrity,
diversity, and environmental health of a refuge and its ecosystem.
Although Service and Refuge System policy and the purpose(s) of each refuge
provide the foundation for its management, other Federal laws, executive orders,
treaties, interstate compacts, and regulations on conserving and protecting natural
and cultural resources also affect how we manage refuges. Our “Digest of Federal
Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service” describes many
of them at http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/indx.html.
Of particular note are the Federal laws that require the Service to identify and
preserve its important historic structures, archaeological sites, and artifacts.
NEPA mandates our consideration of cultural resources in planning Federal
actions. The Improvement Act requires the CCP for each refuge to identify its
archaeological and cultural values. Following is a highlight of some cultural and
historic resource protection laws which relate to the development of CCPs.
■ The Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa–470ll; Pub.L. 96–
95) approved October 31, 1979, (93 Stat. 721), referred to as ARPA, largely
supplanted the resource protection provisions of the Antiquities Act of 1906
for archaeological items. ARPA establishes detailed requirements for issuance
of permits for any excavation for or removal of archaeological resources from
Federal or Native American lands. It also establishes civil and criminal penalties
for the unauthorized excavation, removal, or damage of those resources; for any
traffi cking in those removed from Federal or Native American land in violation
of any provision of Federal law; and for interstate and foreign commerce in such
resources acquired, transported or received in violation of any state or local law.
■ The Archeological and Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 469–469c;
Pub.L. 86–523,) approved June 27, 1960, (74 Stat. 220) as amended by Pub.L. 93–
291, approved May 24, 1974, (88 Stat. 174) carries out the policy established
by the Historic Sites Act (see below). It directs Federal agencies to notify the
Secretary of the Interior whenever they fi nd that a Federal or Federally-assisted
licensed or permitted project may cause the loss or destruction of signifi cant
scientifi c, prehistoric or archaeological data. The act authorizes the use of
appropriated, donated or transferred funds for the recovery, protection and
preservation of that data.
■ The Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 461–462, 464–467;
49 Stat. 666) of August 21, 1935, popularly known as the Historic Sites Act, as
amended by Pub.L. 89–249, approved October 9, 1965, (79 Stat. 971), declares it
a national policy to preserve historic sites and objects of national signifi cance,
including those located on refuges. It provides procedures for designating,
acquiring, administering and protecting them. Among other things, National
Historic and Natural Landmarks are designated under the authority of this act.
Policy on Maintaining
Biological Integrity,
Diversity, and
Environmental Health
Other Mandates
The National Wildlife Refuge System and its Mission and Policies
Chapter 1 1-10 . Purpose of and Need For Action
■ The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470–470b, 470c–470n),
Pub.L. 89–665, approved October 15, 1966 (80 Stat. 915) and repeatedly
amended, provides for the preservation of signifi cant historical features
(buildings, objects and sites) through a grant-in-aid program to the states. It
establishes a National Register of Historic Places and a program of matching
grants under the existing National Trust for Historic Preservation (16 U.S.C.
468–468d). This act establishes an Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,
which became a permanent, independent agency in Pub.L. 94–422, approved
September 28, 1976 (90 Stat. 1319). The act created the Historic Preservation
Fund. It directs Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their actions
on items or sites listed or eligible for listing on the National Register.
■ The Service also has a mandate to care for museum properties it owns in
the public trust. The most common are archaeological, zoological, botanical
collections, historical photographs, historic objects, and art. Each refuge
maintains an inventory of its museum property. Our museum property
coordinator in Hadley, Massachusetts, guides the refuges in caring for that
property, and helps us comply with the Native American Grave Protection and
Repatriation Act and Federal regulations governing Federal archaeological
collections. Our program ensures that those collections will remain available to
the public for learning and research.
Other Federal resource laws are also important to highlight as they are
integral to developing a CCP. The Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131–1136;
Pub.L. 88–577) establishes a National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS)
that is composed of Federal-owned areas designated by Congress as “wilderness
areas.” The act directs each agency administering designated wilderness to
preserve the wilderness character of areas within the NWPS, and to administer
the NWPS for the use and enjoyment of the American people in a way that will
leave those areas unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness. The act
also directs the Secretary of the Interior, within 10 years, to review every roadless
area of 5,000 acres or more and every roadless island (regardless of size) within
National Wildlife Refuge and National Park systems for inclusion in the National
Wilderness Preservation System. Service planning policy requires that we evaluate
the potential for wilderness on refuge lands, as appropriate, during the CCP
planning process.
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended, selects certain rivers of
the nation possessing remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fi sh and wildlife,
historic, cultural, or other similar values, preserves them in a free-fl owing
condition, and protects their local environments. Service planning policy requires
that we evaluate the potential for wild and scenic rivers designation on refuge
lands, as appropriate, during the CCP planning process.
Our mandates also include orders directed by the President, Secretary of Interior,
and/or Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We highlight three of those
orders below.
■ One of special importance to this document is 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 National Wildlife Refuge System and its Mission and Policies
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need For Action 1-11
It directs the establishment of a Federal Leadership Committee chaired by
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, or their designee,
with participation by all Federal agencies with jurisdiction in the Bay. The
Committee’s purpose is to lead the effort to restore the health of the Chesapeake
Bay under a renewed commitment to control pollution from all sources as well
as protect and restore habitat and living resources, conserve lands, and improve
management of natural resources, all of which contribute to improved water
quality and ecosystem health.
This 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; 6) the monitoring and accountability of activities.
■ 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
Department of the Interior and the Department of 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.
■ Secretarial Order 3289 — Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on
Americas Water, Land, and Other Natural and Cultural Resources, was issued
on September 14, 2009. This order establishes a Department-wide, 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, fi sh
and wildlife, and cultural heritage resources that the Department manages.
The order establishes a “Climate Change Response Council” that will execute a
coordinated Department-wide strategy to increase scientifi c 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 fi re threats, and an increase
in invasive and exotic species.
The Service developed this report (USFWS 2008) as an update to their 2002
report in consultation with the leaders of ongoing bird conservation initiatives and
such partnerships as Partners In Flight (PIF), the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan (NAWMP) and Joint Ventures, the North American Waterbird
Conservation Plan (NAWCP), and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. It
Conservation Plans
and Initiatives Guiding
the Proposed Action
Birds of Conservation
Concern 2008 Report
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Proposed Action
Chapter 1 1-12 . Purpose of and Need For Action
fulfi lls the mandate of the 1988 amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Act of 1980 (100 Pub. L. 100–653, Title VIII), requiring the Secretary of the
Interior, through the Service, to “identify species, subspecies, and populations of
all migratory non-game birds that, without additional conservation actions, are
likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.”
The overall goal of this report is to accurately identify the migratory and non-migratory
bird species (beyond those already designated as federally threatened
or endangered) that represent our highest conservation priorities.
The geographic scope of this endeavor is the U.S. in its entirety, including island
“territories” in the Pacifi c and Caribbean. The report encompasses three distinct
geographic scales — the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI)
Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs), the eight Service Regions, and National — and
is primarily derived from assessment scores from three major bird conservation
plans: the Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan,
the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, and the North American Waterbird
Conservation Plan. Bird species included on lists in the report include non-game
birds, gamebirds without hunting seasons, subsistence-hunted non-game birds
in Alaska, and Endangered Species Act candidate, proposed endangered or
threatened, and recently delisted species. Population trends, threats distribution,
abundance and relative density were all factors considered.
This report is intended to stimulate coordinated and collaborative proactive
conservation actions among Federal, state, tribal, and private partners. It is
hoped that by focusing attention on these highest-priority species, this report will
promote greater study and protection of the habitats and ecological communities
upon which these species depend, thereby contributing to healthy avian
populations and communities. You may view the report at: http://www.fws.gov/
migratorybirds/reports/BCC2008/BCC2008m.pdf. This is one of the plans we used
in identifying species of concern in appendix A, and in developing management
objectives and strategies in goals 1, 2, and 3.
Originally written in 1986, NAWMP describes a 15-year strategy promulgated
by the United States, Canada, and Mexico to restore and sustain waterfowl
populations by protecting, restoring and enhancing habitat. The plan committee,
including representatives from each nation, has modifi ed the 1986 plan twice to
account for biological, sociological, and economic changes that infl uenced the status
of waterfowl and the conduct of cooperative habitat conservation. The most recent
modifi cation, in 2004, (NAWMP 2004) updates the needs, priorities, and strategies
for the next 15 years, increases stakeholder confi dence in the direction of its
actions, and guides partners in strengthening the biological foundation of North
American waterfowl conservation. You may review the plan at http://www.fws.gov/
birdhabitat/NAWMP.
To convey goals, priorities, and strategies more effectively, NAWMP 2004 is
comprised of two separate documents: Strategic Guidance and Implementation
Framework, the former for agency administrators and policy makers 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. Our project area
lies in the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (ACJV), which includes all the Atlantic
Flyway states from Maine to Florida and Puerto Rico. The waterfowl goal for the
Atlantic Coast Joint Venture is “Protect and manage priority wetland habitats for
migration, wintering, and production of waterfowl, with special consideration to
black ducks, and to benefi t other wildlife in the joint venture area.”
North American Waterfowl
Management Plan
(NAWMP; update 2004)
and Atlantic Coast Joint
Venture Implementation
Plan (ACJV 2005)
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Proposed Action
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need For Action 1-13
In 2005, a revision of the original ACJV Implementation Plan (ACJV 2005) was
completed. The ACJV 2005 plan presents habitat conservation goals and population
indices for the ACJV consistent with the NAWMP update, provides status
assessments of waterfowl and their habitats in the joint venture, and updates focus
area narratives and maps for each state. That document is intended as a blueprint
for conserving the valuable breeding, migration and wintering waterfowl habitat
present within the ACJV boundary based on the best available information and the
expert opinion of waterfowl biologists from throughout the fl yway. You may review
the ACJV 2005 at http://www.acjv.org/acjv_publications.htm.
The Black Duck Joint Venture plan also relates to our project area. Black ducks use
the refuge year-round, and are most plentiful during fall migration and winter. The
Black Duck Joint Venture Plan, Final Draft Strategic Plan (USFWS/CWS 1993) can
be viewed at http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bdjv/.
We used these plans in identifying species of concern in appendix A, and in
developing management objectives and strategies under goals 1, 2, and 3.
The refuge lies in the New England/Mid-
Atlantic BCR 30, which lists birds of high
conservation priority for the region. BCR 30
provides important resources for migratory
birds whose ranges span the western
hemisphere. The habitats associated with
coastal ecosystems provide the highest
habitat values and critical staging areas for
migratory waterfowl, waterbirds, shorebirds,
and landbirds. Forested upland communities,
are the second most important habitats for
migratory birds in the BCR. The Chesapeake
Bay and Delaware Bay, as well as other major
bays in the BCR, provide crucial resources
for many migrating birds as they journey
from their breeding sites in the north to non-breeding
sites in Mexico, Central America,
the Caribbean and South America.
Unfortunately, most of the lands in
BCR 30 have been altered from their
historic condition. Urban development
and agriculture dominates much of the
landscape. The loss or degradation of habitat (e.g., by fragmentation, agriculture,
and invasive species) are the greatest threats to bird populations in BCR 30. This
plan identifi es the bird species and habitats in greatest need of conservation action
in this region, activities thought to be most useful to address those needs, and
geographic areas believed to be the most important places for those activities. This
plan is meant to start a regional bird conservation initiative of partners across
BCR 30 communicating their conservation planning and implementation activities
to deliver high-priority conservation actions in a coordinated manner. You may view
the BCR 30 implementation plan at http://www.acjv.org/bcr30_draft.htm.
We used this plan in identifying species of concern in appendix A, and in developing
management objectives and strategies under goals 1, 2, and 3.
This plan (Kushlan et al., 2002) is an independent partnership among individuals and
institutions with the interest in and responsibility for conserving water birds and
their habitats. The plan is just one element of a multi-faceted conservation program.
New England/Mid-Atlantic
Bird Conservation Region
(BCR 30) Implementation
Plan (2007)
North American
Waterbird Conservation
Plan (Version 1, 2002)
Scarlet tanager
©Les Brooks
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Proposed Action
Chapter 1 1-14 . Purpose of and Need For Action
Its primary goal is to ensure that the distribution, diversity, and abundance of
populations and habitats of breeding, migratory, and non-breeding water birds are
sustained or restored throughout the lands and waters of North America, Central
America, and the Caribbean. It provides a framework for conserving and managing
colonially nesting water-dependent birds. In addition, it will facilitate continent-wide
planning and monitoring, national, state, and provincial conservation, regional
coordination, and local habitat protection and management. You may access the plan
at http://www.nawcp.org/pubs/ContinentalPlan.cfm.
In 2006, the Mid-Atlantic New England Working Group developed the
Waterbird Conservation Plan for the Mid-Atlantic/New England/Maritimes
(MANEM) Region (MANEM Waterbird Working Group 2006). This plan is
being implemented between 2006 and 2010. It consists of technical appendixes on
(1) waterbird populations including occurrence, status, and conservation needs,
(2) waterbird habitats and locations within the region that are crucial for waterbird
sustainability, (3) MANEM partners and regional expertise for waterbird
conservation, and (4) conservation project descriptions that present current and
proposed research, management, habitat acquisition, and education activities.
Summarized information on waterbirds and their habitats provides a regional
perspective for local conservation action. You may access the plan at http://www.
fws.gov/birds/waterbirds/manem/index.html.
We used this plan in identifying species of concern in appendix A, and in developing
management objectives and strategies under goals 1, 2, and 3.
Concerns about shorebirds led to the creation of the U.S. Shorebird Conservation
Plan in 2000. A second edition was published in May 2001 (Brown et al. 2001).
Developed in a partnership with individuals and organizations throughout the
United States, the plan presents conservation goals for each U.S. region, identifi es
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 plan at http://www.fws.gov/shorebirdplan/USShorebird/
downloads/USShorebirdPlan2Ed.pdf.
In the Northeast, the North Atlantic Regional Shorebird Plan (Clark & Niles,
North Atlantic Shorebird Habitat Working Group 2000) was drafted to step
down the goals of the continental plan to smaller scales to identify priority
species, habitat and species goals, and implementation projects. You may view
the North Atlantic Regional Shorebird Plan at http://www.fws.gov/shorebirdplan/
RegionalShorebird/RegionalPlans.htm.
We used this plan in identifying species of concern in appendix A, and in developing
management objectives and strategies under goals 1, 2, and 3.
In July 2007, the Service issued a fi nal ruling to remove the bald eagle from
the Federal list of endangered and threatened species. The bald eagle remains
under the protection of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act)
and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The Service developed 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 help minimize impacts on bald eagles, particularly
where people may constitute a “disturbance,” which the Eagle Act prohibits.
The guidelines (1) publicize the provisions of the Eagle Act that continue
to protect bald eagles, to reduce the possibility that people will violate the
law, (2) advise landowners, land managers and the 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. We intended
the guidelines primarily as a tool for landowners and planners who seek
information and recommendations on how to avoid disturbing bald eagles. You
U.S. Shorebird (2001,
2nd Edition) and North
Atlantic Regional
Shorebird Plans
National Bald Eagle
Management Guidelines
(May 2007) and Virginia
Bald Eagle Guidelines
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Proposed Action
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need For Action 1-15
may view the guidelines at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/issues/BaldEagle/
NationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf.
Because of the delisting, the specifi c guidelines for Virginia’s bald eagles, prepared
by our Virginia Field Offi ce and the Virginia Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries (VDGIF), are being revised. The bald eagle remains a state threatened
species in Virginia, and because of the importance of the Chesapeake Bay region
for the entire Atlantic population of eagles, we will consider state guidelines
regarding time-of-year restrictions and distance requirements from nests and
concentration areas, even if they are more stringent than the national guidelines.
We referred to those guidelines as we developed our management objectives and
strategies for bald eagles.
In 1990, Partners In Flight (PIF) began as a voluntary, international coalition of
government agencies, conservation organizations, academic institutions, private
industries, and citizens dedicated to reversing the population declines of bird
species and “keeping common birds common.” The foundation of PIF’s long-term
strategy is a series of scientifi cally based bird conservation plans using
physiographic areas as planning units.
The goal of each PIF plan is to ensure the long-term maintenance of healthy
populations of native birds, primarily non-game birds. The plan for each
physiographic area ranks bird species according to their conservation priority,
describes their desired habitat conditions, develops biological objectives, and
recommends conservation measures. The priority ranking factors in habitat loss,
population trends, and the vulnerability of a species and its habitats to regional and
local threats.
Physiographic Area 44–Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain (April 1999).—Our project area
lies in Physiographic Area 44, the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Region. We referred to this
plan in developing our list of species of conservation concern in appendix A, as well
as our habitat objectives and strategies under goals 1, 2, and 3. This plan can be
accessed at http://www.blm.gov/wildlife/plan/pl_44_10.pdf.
Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (PARC) was created in response
to the increasing, well-documented national declines in amphibian and reptile
populations. Many consider it the most comprehensive effort in herpetofaunal
conservation. PARC members come from state and Federal agencies, conservation
organizations, museums, the pet trade industry, nature centers, zoos, the power
industry, universities, herpetological organizations, research laboratories, forest
industries and environmental consultants. Its fi ve geographic regions—Northeast,
Southeast, Midwest, Southwest and Northwest—
can focus on national and regional challenges in
herpetofaunal conservation. Regional working
groups allow for region-specifi c communication.
The Northeast working group has developed
“Model State Herpetofauna Regulatory Guidelines”
which informs us on specifi c habitat management
prescriptions for the benefi t of different taxonomic
groups of herpetofauna. We consulted these
guidelines as we developed our strategy, this
document can be found at (http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/
neparc/products/modelherpregs.htm)
The National State Agency Herpetological
Conservation Report (NHCR) is a summary report
(PARC 2004) sponsored by PARC that provides
a general overview of each state wildlife agency’s
support for reptile and amphibian conservation and
Partners In Flight Bird
Conservation Plans
Partners in Amphibian
and Reptile Conservation,
National State Agency
Herpetological
Conservation Report
(Draft 2004)
Northern water snake
USFWS
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Proposed Action
Chapter 1 1-16 . Purpose of and Need For Action
research through September 2004. It lists amphibian and reptile species of concern
for each state. Each state report was compiled in cooperation with its agency’s lead
biologist on herpetofaunal conservation. That report can be accessed at http://www.
parcplace.org/documents/PARCNationalStates2004.pdf. Its 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 include other state agencies that are supporting
herpetofaunal conservation and research, such as transportation departments,
park departments, and forest agencies. The next NHCR report will integrate
a list of the Species of Conservation Concern into each state’s comprehensive
conservation wildlife strategy (see below).
The Service’s Fisheries Program (Program) primary mission is to work with others
to maintain self-sustaining, healthy populations of coastal and anadromous fi sh
(fi sh that spend part of their lives in fresh water and part in the ocean), fi sh species
that cross state or national boundaries, and endangered aquatic animals and their
habitats. In the Northeast Region, 25 fi shery management offi ces and national fi sh
hatcheries work with states and other partners to restore and protect a variety of
fi sh and other aquatic species. Examples include Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar),
striped bass (Morone saxatilis), American shad (Alosa sapidissima), river herring
(Alosa pseudoharengus, Alosa aestivalis), sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus
oxyrinchus), horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus), American eel (Anguilis
rostrata), and menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus).
The Program has played a vital role in conserving and managing fi sh and other
aquatic resources since 1871. Today, the Program is a critical partner with states,
Tribes, other governments, other Service programs, private organizations, public
institutions, and interested citizens in a larger effort to conserve these important
resources. In 2002, working with its many partners in aquatic conservation
through the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council’s Fisheries Steering
Committee, the Service completed its Strategic Vision (Vision) document:
“Conserving America’s Fisheries, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fisheries
Program Vision for the Future.” That vision document includes goals, objectives,
and action items on a national programmatic scale.
The Program is committed to working with partners to
■ Protect the health of aquatic habitats;
■ Restore fi sh and other aquatic resources; and
■ Provide opportunities to enjoy the many benefi ts of healthy aquatic resources.
The Regional Fisheries Program Strategic Plan (plan) is an extension of the vision,
describing more specifi cally the tactics to be implemented by the Northeast Region
to fulfi ll the goals and objectives identifi ed in the vision. The fi rst plan covered
years 2004 to 2008. The current plan (2009–2013) can be viewed at http://www.fws.
gov/northeast/fi sheries/reports/reports/FisheriesStrategicPlan.pdf
This plan brings together changing national direction, institutional knowledge,
analysis of spatial information, and the perspectives of our state and tribal
partners to develop a strategic plan that allows this regional program to prioritize
its efforts during challenging times, while promoting positive change into the
future. As the plan is implemented it will we build on a strong foundation of
active partnerships and past accomplishments, while recognizing that continued
communication, cooperation and expansion of partnerships is essential for
successful implementation of this plan and fulfi llment of the Program’s resource
U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service Fisheries Program,
Northeast Region
Strategic Plan 2009–2013
(January 2009)
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Proposed Action
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need For Action 1-17
responsibilities and obligations. This plan was built off the lessons learned from
implementing the 2004–2008 strategic plan, which was very broad.
One step-down effort resulting from the plan is the identifi cation and ranking
of fi sh 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
3, and in creating appendix A, “Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern on
the Refuge and Other Refuge Species Lists.”
In 2002, Congress created the State Wildlife Grant Program (SWG), and
appropriated $80 million in state grants. The purpose of the program is to help state
and tribal fi sh and wildlife agencies conserve fi sh and wildlife species of greatest
conservation need. The funds appropriated under the program are allocated to each
state according to a formula that takes into account its size and population.
To be eligible for additional Federal grants, and to satisfy the requirements for
participating in the SWG program, each state and U.S. territory was charged
with developing a statewide “Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy” and
submitting it to the National Advisory Acceptance Team by October 1, 2005. Each
plan must address eight required elements, and each plan is to identify and focus
on “species of greatest conservation need,” yet address the “full array of wildlife”
and wildlife-related issues, and “keep common species common.”
The Virginia plan (VDGIF 2005), commonly referred to as the Virginia Wildlife
Action Plan (VA WAP) resulted from that charge. It creates a vision for conserving
Virginia’s wildlife and stimulates other states, Federal agencies, and conservation
partners to think strategically about their individual and coordinated roles in
prioritizing conservation.
In addressing the eight elements below, the VA WAP helps supplement the
information we gathered on species and habitat occurrences and their distribution
in our area analysis, and helps us identify conservation threats and management
strategies for species and habitats of conservation concern in the CCP. The
expertise convened to compile this plan and its partner and public involvement
further enhance its benefi ts for us. We used the VA WAP in developing our list of
species of concern in appendix A, and the management objectives and strategies
for goals 1, 2, and 3. These are its eight elements:
1) information on the distribution and abundance of species of wildlife, including
low and declining populations as the state fi sh and wildlife agency deems
appropriate, that are indicative of the diversity and health of the state’s
wildlife;
2) descriptions of locations and relative condition of key habitats and community
types essential to the conservation of species identifi ed in element 1;
3) descriptions of problems that may adversely affect species identifi ed in
element 1 or their habitats, and priority research and survey efforts needed to
identify factors which 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;
Virginia Wildlife Action
Plan (October 2005)
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Proposed Action
Chapter 1 1-18 . Purpose of and Need For Action
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; and,
8) plans for involving the public in the development and implementation of plan
strategies.
The State of Virginia completed its fi nal WAP, with no changes from its draft, in
October 2005. You may view it at http://www.vawildlifestrategies.org/draft.html.
We also consulted the plans and resources below as we refi ned our management
objectives and strategies, especially those with a local context.
■ Recreational Fishery Resources Conservation Plan; available at https://www.
denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/ES-Programs/Conservation/Fishery/fi shery.html
■ National Wetlands Research Center Strategic Plan; available at http://www.nwrc.
usgs.gov/about/5-year-plan.htm
■ National Audubon Society Watchlist; available at http://web1.audubon.org/
science/species/watchlist/
■ CHESAPEAKE 2000: A Watershed Partnership; available at: http://www.
chesapeakebay.net/pubs/agree99.PDF
■ Ducks Unlimited Conservation Plan; available at http://www.ducks.org/
Conservation/ConservationPlan/1516/InternationalConservationPlan.html
■ The Chesapeake Rivers Site Conservation Plan (TNC) ; available at: http://
conserveonline.org/coldocs/2001/08/chesriv_plan.zip/?searchterm=chesriv_plan
■ Chesapeake Bay Lowlands Ecoregional Plan (TNC) ; available at http://
conserveonline.org/docs/2005/03/CBYplan.pdf
■ Partners for Wildlife Strategic Plan; available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/
partners/web/pdf/783.pdf
■ Business Plan for Environmental Education; available at http://www.vanaturally.
com/pdf/busplan.pdf
■ VA Outdoors Plan and/or Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans
(SCORP); available at http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/recreational_planning/vop.sht
■ Northern Neck PDC: Cat Point Creek Watershed Management Plan
2004; available at http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/soil_&_water/documents/02-
CatPointCreekWMP-2004.pdf
■ Atlantic Flyway Mute Swan Management Plan; available at http://www.mdwfa.
org/fl yway/muteswanchesapeakebaymanagementplan.pdf
■ American Woodcock Management Plan; available at http://permanent.access.gpo.
gov/lps2111/nativefi lesharvest/wdckrept.html
■ Black Duck Joint Venture; available at http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bdjv/bdjvstpl.
htm
Other Information Sources
Continental or National
Plans
Regional Plans
State Plans
Local Plans
Individual Species Plans
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Proposed Action
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need For Action 1-19
Refuge Establishing Purposes and Land Acquisition History
■ King Rail Conservation Plan; available at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/
MidwestBird/FocalSpecies/documents/Draft_King_Rail_Conservation_Plan.pdf
■ Northern bobwhite conservation initiative; available at http://www.
bobwhiteconservation.org/
■ Sensitive Joint-Vetch Recovery Plan; available at http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/
recovery_plans/1995/950929b.pdf
■ American Shad and River Herring Fisheries Management Plan (spawning/
nurseries); available at http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/shad/
fmps/1985FMP.pdf
■ Final Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon; available at http://www.nmfs.
noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/sturgeon_shortnose.pdf
■ Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Sturgeon and its amendments
and addendums; available at http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/sturgeon/
fmps/fmps/sturgeonFMP.pdf
■ American Eel Fisheries Management Plan and addendum; available at http://
www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/eel/fmps/eelFMP.pdf
■ Management Plan for the Atlantic Population of Canada Geese; available at
http://www.mdwfa.org/fl yway/CAGO_APMgmtPlanMarch2008.pdf
■ Management Plan for the Eastern population of Tundra Swans; available at
http://www.mdwfa.org/fl yway/FinalEPTUSWPlanJuly-07.pdf
■ Small-Whorled Pagonia Recovery Plan; available at http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/
recovery_plans/1992/921113b.pdf
The refuge was established in 1996 for the following purposes and under the
following authorities.
“for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and
protection of fi sh and wildlife resources....” 16 U.S.C. §742f(a)(4), and
“for the benefi t of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing
its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms
of any restrictive or affi rmative covenant, or condition of servitude...”
16 U.S.C. §742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956), and
“the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the
public benefi ts they provide and to help fulfi ll international obligations
contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions ...” 16 U.S.C.
§3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583 (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986), and
“to conserve (A) fi sh or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or
threatened species…or (B) plants…” 16 U.S.C. §1534 (Endangered Species
Act of 1973), and
“for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose,
for migratory birds….” 16 U.S.C. §715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act).
Map 1.1 above depicts the refuge ownership boundary as of September 30, 2007.
Table 1.1 below summarizes the land acquisition history of the refuge by year.
Refuge Establishing
Purposes and Land
Acquisition History
Chapter 1 1-20 . Purpose of and Need For Action
Refuge Administration
Table 1.1. History of land acquisition at the Rappahannock River Valley refuge
through September 30, 2007
Acquisition
Date Acreage
Funding
Source
1996 1112 Donation
1998 41 LWCF²
1999 2651 LWCF; Donation
2000 166 LWCF; MBCF³
2001 860 LWCF
2003 686 LWCF
2004 1015 MBCF; LWCF
2005 1180 LWCF
2006 0
2007 0
Total 7,711¹
¹ The Service owns 6,352 acres in fee and 1,359 in conservation easement. Those
acres are rounded to whole numbers; contact the refuge headquarters for
precise acreages.
² LWCF—Land and Water Conservation Fund.—funding sources include
revenues from the sale of surplus Federal real property, motorboat fuel taxes,
fees for recreation on Federal lands, and receipts from mineral leases on the
outer continental shelf.
³ MBCF—Migratory Bird Conservation Fund.—the funding source is receipts
from the sale of Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps.
We administer the Rappahannock River Valley refuge as part of the Eastern
Virginia Rivers NWR Complex, which also includes the James River, Plum Tree
Island, and Presquile refuges. The refuge complex headquarters is located in
Warsaw, Virginia.
This refuge complex now has seven permanent staff: a refuge manager, deputy
refuge manager, refuge wildlife biologist, administrative assistant, a visitor
services specialist, refuge law enforcement offi cer, and one maintenance worker.
Seasonal staff positions will vary between one and fi ve each year. Six of the
employees are stationed in Warsaw; one is stationed in Charles City, Virginia.
The position at the Charles City sub-offi ce assists in visitor services for the entire
refuge complex, and manages the day-to-day operations at the James River, Plum
Tree Island, and Presquile refuges.
Refuge planning policy lists more than 25 step-down management plans that may
be required on refuges. Those plans contain specifi c strategies and implementation
schedules for achieving refuge goals and objectives. Some plans require annual
revisions; others require revision every 5 to 10 years. Some require additional
NEPA analysis, public involvement, and compatibility determinations before we
can implement them.
The status of step-down plans on the refuge follows. This plan incorporates by
reference those that are up-to-date. Chapter 3 provides more information about
the additional step-down plans needed and their schedule for completion.
The refuge now has the following seven step-down plans in place. We will update
them as warranted for consistency with the fi nal CCP.
Refuge Administration
Refuge Operational
Plans (“Step-down”
Plans)
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need For Action 1-21
Refuge Operational Plans (“Step-down” Plans)
■ Fire Management—updated in 2009
■ Public Deer Hunting—completed 2002
■ Public Fishing—completed 2003
■ Environmental Education—completed 2004
■ Avian Infl uenza Contingency Plan—completed 2007
■ Hurricane Action Plan—completed 2007
■ Chronic Wasting Disease Plan-completed 2008
We plan to complete the following step-down plans (also see chapter 3).
■ Habitat Management Plan (HMP; highest priority step-down plan, to be
completed within 1 year of CCP approval)
■ Annual Habitat Work Plan (AHWP) (to be completed annually after HMP
approval)
■ Safety Plan (to be completed within 1 year of CCP approval)
■ Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM; to be completed within 2 years of CCP
approval)
■ Inventory and Monitoring Plan (IMP; to be completed within 2 years of CCP
approval)
■ Visitor Services Plan (to be completed within 5 years of CCP approval)
■ Law Enforcement Plan (to be completed within 5 years of CCP approval)
Mt. Landing Creek
USFWS
Chapter 1 1-22 . Purpose of and Need For Action
Refuge Goals
Our planning team developed this vision statement to provide a guiding philosophy
and sense of purpose in the CCP.
“On the Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge, birds will
raise their young in native habitats of fi eld, forest, and marsh. They will
fi nd rest and nourishment during migration and a haven in winter. We
will manage refuge lands and waters with an emphasis on species whose
populations have declined, assisting them on the road to recovery.
“In partnership with others, we will contribute to the communities where
we exist, helping renew the health and vitality of the Rappahannock River
and the Chesapeake Bay. We will complement the rich traditions of hunting,
fi shing, forestry and agriculture on Virginia’s Northern Neck and Middle
Peninsula.
“The refuge will serve as an outdoor classroom, where students of all ages
will study nature’s complexity, contributing to our understanding and
appreciation of the natural world and the National Wildlife Refuge System.
All those who visit will fi nd enjoyment in the presence of healthy and
abundant fi sh, wildlife, and plants, and will leave with a renewed personal
commitment to land conservation and stewardship.”
We developed these goals after considering the vision statement, the purposes
for establishing the refuge, the missions of the Service and the Refuge System,
and the mandates, plans, and conservation initiatives above. These goals are
intentionally broad, descriptive statements of purpose. They highlight elements
of the vision for the refuge that we will emphasize in its future management. The
biological goals take precedence; but otherwise, we do not present them in any
particular order. In Chapter 4, we describe the relationship between the goals,
objectives, and strategies that we have developed.
Goal 1. Contribute to the biological diversity of the mid-Atlantic region by
protecting, enhancing, and restoring the refuge’s upland habitats, with an
emphasis on breeding, migrating, and wintering birds.
Goal 2. Maintain the long-term biological integrity of riparian habitats along the
Rappahannock River and its tributaries for bald eagles and other migratory birds.
Goal 3. Maintain and enhance the biological diversity and environmental health
of tidal and non-tidal wetlands to benefi t Federal listed species, waterfowl, other
migratory birds, fi sh and shellfi sh, reptiles, and amphibians.
Goal 4. Promote enjoyment and stewardship of our Nation’s natural resources
by providing high-quality, wildlife-dependent recreational and educational
opportunities on refuge lands and waters.
Goal 5. Communicate and collaborate with local communities, Federal and state
agencies, and conservation organizations throughout the lower Rappahannock
River watershed to promote natural resource conservation and the mission of the
Refuge System.
Refuge Vision
Statement
Refuge Goals
Chapter 2
The Planning Process
■ The Comprehensive Planning Process
■ Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
USFWS
Cat Point Creek
Chapter 2. The Planning Process 2-1
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
Service policy (602 FW 3) establishes an eight-step planning process that also
facilitates compliance with NEPA (fi gure 2.1). The full text of the policy and
a detailed description of the planning steps can be viewed at http://policy.fws.
gov/602fw3.html. We followed the process depicted below in developing this
fi nal CCP.
Since 1996, we have focused on conserving lands within the approved refuge
boundary, facilitating wildlife-dependent public uses, managing habitat for
several focus species, such as grassland birds and bald eagles, and establishing
relationships with the community and our partners. In 2005, we began to prepare
for developing a CCP by collecting information on refuge resources and mapping
its habitats. We convened our core team, which consists of refuge staff, Regional
Offi ce staff, our VA Fisheries Coordinator, and representatives of the VDGIF.
We discussed management issues, drafted a vision statement and tentative goals,
and compiled a project mailing list of known stakeholders, interested individuals,
organizations, and agencies. We also conducted a wilderness review, evaluated
wild and scenic rivers potential, and summarized our biological inventory
and monitoring information. We initiated all of those steps as part of “Step A:
Preplanning.”
In November 2005, we started “Step B: Initiate Public Involvement and Scoping.”
On November 1, we formally announced the start of the planning process in
a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register. Also in November, we distributed
a newsletter to approximately 310 individuals, organizations and agencies,
announcing we were beginning the planning process and asking people if they
wanted to remain on our mailing list.
In December 2005, we distributed copies of a planning newsletter and issues
workbook to everyone on that list. Those workbooks asked people to share what
they valued most about the refuge, their vision for its future and the Service role
in their community, and any other issues they wanted to raise. We received 32
completed workbooks.
Early in December, we held public scoping meetings in Richmond, Port Royal,
and Warsaw, Virginia, to identify public issues and concerns, share our draft vision
statement and tentative goals, describe the planning process, and explain how
people could become involved and stay informed about the process. Those meetings
helped us identify the public concerns we would need to address in the planning
process. We announced their locations, dates, and times in local newspapers,
in special mailings, and on our website. Forty-fi ve people attended those public
meetings. Since then, we have also solicited public issues and concerns regularly
from individuals through visitor contacts, refuge-sponsored events, community-sponsored
events in which the refuge participated, and answered invitations to
speak to community organizations.
Throughout 2006, we worked on “Step C: Review Vision Statement, Goals, and
Identify Signifi cant Issues”. We held a technical workshop to seek advice from
technical experts on what resources of conservation concern in the refuge planning
area should be a management priority. We also met with elected offi cials, our state
partners, and other Service divisions to apprise them of the status of the project
and exchange technical information.
For much of 2006 and into 2007, we worked on “Step D: Develop and Analyze
Alternatives.��� We compiled and analyzed various management alternatives to
serve as the foundation for developing the draft CCP/EA. We distributed to our
mailing list and posted on our website a planning update newsletter in April 2006.
The Comprehensive
Conservation Planning
Process
2-2 Chapter 2. The Planning Process
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
That newsletter shared our goals, provided an update on CCP activities, and
summarized the key issues we would address in this CCP.
Also in 2006, the USGS Fort Collins Science Center helped us develop and
implement a community survey to provide us with information on public
satisfaction, preferences, and expectations regarding our current and proposed
refuge management. We randomly selected more than 1,200 residences near
the refuge to receive that survey questionnaire. The fi nal report on the survey
Figure 2.1. The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process and its
Relationship to the National Environmental Policy Act
A. Preplanning:
Plan the Plan
NEPA
􀁴􇐀􀀁􀄀􀁑􅄀􀁖􅘀􀁓􅌀􀁑􅄀􀁐􅀀􀁔􅐀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀􀁏􄼀􀁆􄘀􀁆􄘀􀁅􄕈
H. Review & Revise Plan
NEPA
􀁴􇐀􀀁􀄀􀀯􂼀􀀦􂘀􀀱􃄀􀀢􂈀􀀁􀄀􀁄􄐀􀁐􅀀􀁎􄸀􀁑􅄀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁄􄐀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀􀁑􅄀􀁖􅘀􀁃􄌀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁄􄐀􀀁􀄀
􀁊􄨀􀁏􄼀􀁗􅜀􀁐􅀀􀁍􄴀􀁗􅜀􀁆􄘀􀁎􄸀􀁆􄘀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀀁􀄀􀁘􅠀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀁏􄼀􀀁􀄀􀁂􄈀􀁑􅄀􀁑􅄀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁄􄐀􀁂􄈀􀁃􄌀􀁍􄴀􀁆􄙂
B. Initiate Public
Involvement & Scoping
NEPA
􀁴􇐀􀀁􀄀􀁏􄼀􀁐􅀀􀁕􅔀􀁊􄨀􀁇􄜀􀁚􅨀􀀁􀄀􀁕􅔀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀁑􅄀􀁖􅘀􀁃􄌀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁄􄐀
􀁴􇐀􀀁􀄀􀁊􄨀􀁏􄼀􀁗􅜀􀁐􅀀􀁍􄴀􀁗􅜀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀁕􅔀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀁑􅄀􀁖􅘀􀁃􄌀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁄􄐀
􀁴����􀀁􀄀􀁔􅐀􀁄􄐀􀁐􅀀􀁑􅄀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀁕􅔀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀁊􄨀􀁔􅐀􀁔􅐀􀁖􅘀􀁆􄘀􀁔􅑆
F. Prepare & Adopt Final Plan
NEPA
􀁴􇐀􀀁􀄀􀁓􅌀􀁆􄘀􀁔􅐀􀁑􅄀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀􀁕􅔀􀁐􅀀􀀁􀄀􀁑􅄀􀁖􅘀􀁃􄌀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁄􄐀􀀁􀄀􀁄􄐀􀁐􅀀􀁎􄸀􀁎􄸀􀁆􄘀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀
􀁴􇐀􀀁􀄀􀁊􄨀􀁅􄔀􀁆􄘀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀁊􄨀􀁇􄜀􀁚􅨀􀀁􀄀􀁑􅄀􀁓􅌀􀁆􄘀􀁇􄜀􀁆􄘀􀁓􅌀􀁓􅌀􀁆􄘀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀􀁂􄈀􀁍􄴀􀁕􅔀􀁆􄘀􀁓􅌀􀁏􄼀􀁂􄈀􀁕􅔀􀁊􄨀􀁗􅜀􀁆􄘀
􀁴􇐀􀀁􀄀􀁑􅄀􀁓􅌀􀁆􄘀􀁑􅄀􀁂􄈀􀁓􅌀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀􀁅􄔀􀁊􄨀􀁔􅐀􀁕􅔀􀁓􅌀􀁊􄨀􀁃􄌀􀁖􅘀􀁕􅔀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀁇􄜀􀁊􄨀􀁏􄼀􀁂􄈀􀁍􄴀􀀁􀄀􀀤􂐀􀀤􂐀􀀱􃄀􀀁􀄀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀
􀀯􂼀􀀦􂘀􀀱􃄀􀀢􂈀􀀁􀄀􀁅􄔀􀁐􅀀􀁄􄐀􀁖􅘀􀁎􄸀􀁆􄘀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀁂􄈀􀁕􅔀􀁊􄨀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀
􀁴􇐀􀀁􀄀􀁑􅄀􀁓􅌀􀁆􄘀􀁑􅄀􀁂􄈀􀁓􅌀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀􀁅􄔀􀁊􄨀􀁔􅐀􀁕􅔀􀁓􅌀􀁊􄨀􀁃􄌀􀁖􅘀􀁕􅔀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀀧􂜀􀀰􃀀􀀯􂼀􀀴􃐀􀀪􂨀􀀁􀄀􀁇􄜀􀁐􅀀􀁓􅌀􀀁􀄀􀀦􂘀􀀢􂈀􀀁􀄀
􀁐􅀀􀁓􅌀􀀁􀄀􀀳􃌀􀀰􃀀􀀥􂔀􀀁􀄀􀁇􄜀􀁐􅀀􀁓􅌀􀀁􀄀􀀦􂘀􀀪􂨀􀀴􃑄
D. Develop &
Analyze Alternatives
NEPA
􀁴􇐀􀀁􀄀􀁓􅌀􀁆􄘀􀁂􄈀􀁔􅐀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀􀁂􄈀􀁃􄌀􀁍􄴀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀁓􅌀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁈􄠀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀁐􅀀􀁇􄜀􀀁􀄀􀁂􄈀􀁍􄴀􀁕􅔀􀁆􄘀􀁓􅌀􀁏􄼀􀁂􄈀􀁕􅔀􀁊􄨀􀁗􅜀􀁆􄘀􀁔􅐀
􀁴􇐀􀀁􀄀􀀯􂼀􀁐􅀀􀀁􀄀􀀢􂈀􀁄􄐀􀁕􅔀􀁊􄨀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀􀀁􀄀􀁂􄈀􀁍􄴀􀁕􅔀􀁆􄘀􀁓􅌀􀁏􄼀􀁂􄈀􀁕􅔀􀁊􄨀􀁗􅜀􀁆􄘀
􀁴􇐀􀀁􀄀􀁂􄈀􀁄􄐀􀁄􄐀􀁆􄘀􀁔􅐀􀁔􅐀􀀁􀄀􀁆􄘀􀁏􄼀􀁗􅜀􀁊􄨀􀁓􅌀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀􀁎􄸀􀁆􄘀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀁂􄈀􀁍􄴀􀀁􀄀􀁆􄘀􀁇􄜀􀁇􄜀􀁆􄘀􀁄􄐀􀁕􅔀􀁔􅐀
􀁴􇐀􀀁􀄀􀁕􅔀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀀱􃄀􀁓􅌀􀁐􅀀􀁑􅄀􀁐􅀀􀁔􅐀􀁆􄘀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀􀀢􂈀􀁄􄐀􀁕􅔀􀁊􄨀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄽇
G. Implement Plan, Monitor &
Evaluate
NEPA
􀁴􇐀􀀁􀄀􀀯􂼀􀀦􂘀􀀱􃄀􀀢􂈀􀀁􀄀􀁄􄐀􀁐􅀀􀁎􄸀􀁑􅄀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁄􄐀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀􀁑􅄀􀁖􅘀􀁃􄌀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁄􄐀􀀁􀄀
􀁊􄨀􀁏􄼀􀁗􅜀􀁐􅀀􀁍􄴀􀁗􅜀􀁆􄘀􀁎􄸀􀁆􄘀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀀁􀄀􀁘􅠀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀁏􄼀􀀁􀄀􀁂􄈀􀁑􅄀􀁑􅄀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁄􄐀􀁂􄈀􀁃􄌀􀁍􄴀􀁆􄙃
C. Review Vision Statement &
Goals & Determine
Significant Issues
NEPA
􀁴􇐀􀀁􀄀􀁊􄨀􀁅��􀁆􄘀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀁊􄨀􀁇􄜀􀁚􅨀􀀁􀄀􀁔􅐀􀁊􄨀􀁈􄠀􀁏􄼀􀁊􄨀􀁇􄜀􀁊􄨀􀁄􄐀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀀁􀄀􀁊􄨀􀁔􅐀􀁔􅐀􀁖􅘀􀁆􄘀􀁔􅑅
E. Prepare Draft Plan &
NEPA Document
NEPA
􀁴􇐀􀀁􀄀􀁑􅄀􀁓􅌀􀁆􄘀􀁑􅄀􀁂􄈀􀁓􅌀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀􀁅􄔀􀁊􄨀􀁔􅐀􀁕􅔀􀁓􅌀􀁊􄨀􀁃􄌀􀁖􅘀􀁕􅔀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀁅􄔀􀁓􅌀􀁂􄈀􀁇􄜀􀁕􅔀􀀁􀄀􀀤􂐀􀀤􂐀􀀱􃄀􀀁􀄀
􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀􀀯􂼀􀀦􂘀􀀱􃄀􀀢􂈀􀀁􀄀􀁅􄔀􀁐􅀀􀁄􄐀􀁖􅘀􀁎􄸀􀁆􄘀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀁂􄈀􀁕􅔀􀁊􄨀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀
􀁴􇐀􀀁􀄀􀁑􅄀􀁖􅘀􀁃􄌀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁄􄐀􀀁􀄀􀁄􄐀􀁐􅀀􀁎􄸀􀁎􄸀􀁆􄘀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀀁􀄀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁅􄔀􀀁􀄀􀁓􅌀􀁆􄘀􀁗􅜀􀁊􄨀􀁆􄘀􀁘􅠀
Chapter 2. The Planning Process 2-3
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
provided valuable information for our management proposals. We distributed
an executive summary of its results in October 2007; that summary appeared as
appendix G in the draft CCP/EA. You may request the full report from refuge
headquarters in print copy or on CD-ROM, or view it online at http://www.fort.usgs.
gov/products/publications/.
In May 2007, we distributed another newsletter summarizing the three
management alternatives we analyzed in detail for the draft CCP/EA. That
completed Step D.
Our draft CCP/EA fulfi lled “Step E: Prepare Draft Plan and NEPA document.”
We published a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on July 23, 2009
announcing its release for public review and comment. During the 35-day comment
period from July 23 to August 28, 2009, we held two public meetings. We received
comments by regular mail, electronic mail, and at the public meetings. Appendix G
is a summary of the comments we received and our responses to them.
This CCP was submitted to our Regional Director for approval. He determined
it warrants a Finding of No Signifi cant Impact (FONSI; see Appendix H) and
found its analysis suffi cient to simultaneously issue his decision adopting this
CCP. We announced his fi nal decision by publishing a Notice of Availability in the
Federal Register, where we also notifi ed people of the availability of the CCP. This
completes “Step F: Prepare and Adopt a Final Plan.”
“Step G: Implement Plan, Monitor and Evaluate” can now begin with approval of
this CCP. As part of “Step H: Review and Revise Plan,” we will modify or revise
the fi nal CCP as warranted following the procedures in Service policy (602 FW
1, 3, and 4) and NEPA requirements. Minor revisions that meet the criteria for
categorical exclusions (550 FW 3.3C) will require only an environmental action
memorandum. As the Improvement Act and Service policy stipulate, we will review
and revise the CCP fully every 15 years.
Ovenbird nest
USFWS
2-4 Chapter 2. The Planning Process
Leading Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
We defi ne an issue as “any unsettled matter requiring a management decision.”
That can be an “initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, threat to
a resource, confl ict in use, or a public concern.” Issues arise from many sources,
including our staff, other Service programs, state agencies, other Federal agencies,
our partners, neighbors, user groups, or Congress. The following summary
provides a context for the issues that arose during the planning process.
National wildlife refuges primarily promote the conservation wildlife and habitats.
That is our highest priority, and serves as the foundation for all that we do.
Many refuges were established for a very specifi c purpose, such as protecting a
particular species or habitat. Based on the several purposes for this refuge, and
the discussions that took place up to the time of its establishment, the primary
justifi cations for creating it were protecting bald eagles and wetlands along the
lower Rappahannock River, and protecting a regionally important waterfowl
migration and feeding area.
How best to protect, restore, and or enhance wetlands and their associated
species on the refuge is an important issue we address in this fi nal plan. We
heard many opinions on specifi c actions or techniques to accomplish that. Some
of those suggestions fall outside our jurisdiction. Some we can accomplish best in
partnership with other Federal or state agencies. Others expressed concerns that
our current management (e.g., restrictions on public use and access to protect
wildlife and habitats) was impinging on the public use and enjoyment of the river,
and recommended a more conservative approach to setting refuge regulations.
Most of the refuge acreage is upland habitat. Our management of that acreage,
which also can directly affect wetlands nearby, is also an important management
concern. Many migratory birds of conservation concern depend on those upland
habitats when breeding, wintering, or migrating. We heard a range of opinions on
which habitat types we should emphasize and which Federal trust and state species
of concern should be a management focus. Some of those recommendations, in
particular those for grassland and early successional forest habitats, can be labor-intensive.
The following key issues and concerns arose concerning habitat and species
management.
■ What is the appropriate amount and distribution of grasslands habitat to manage
on the refuge?
■ Is there a role for cooperative farming on the refuge?
■ How can we effectively and economically control invasive plants, which are
affecting the quality of habitats we provide on the refuge?
■ What are the most effective and effi cient measures we can undertake to
protect, restore, and conserve wetlands and riparian habitats on the refuge and
throughout the lower Rappahannock River?
■ Can we mitigate the predicted effect of global climate change through our
habitat management?
Changes in land use and associated impacts that threaten the integrity of natural
resources in the lower Rappahannock River area are increasingly a concern.
Recently, we have observed lands that once provided contiguous habitat are being
sub-divided, primarily into residential lots. Although local communities may desire
some of that development, our level of concern rises when those areas destroy
Leading Issues,
Concerns, and
Opportunities
Habitat and Species
Management
Land Protection
Chapter 2. The Planning Process 2-5
Leading Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
or degrade important wildlife habitat, degrade water quality, restrict what was
once public access to recreation areas, or spoil the rural landscape. In addition,
those changes elevate the potential threat from invasive and exotic plants, which
are becoming increasingly widespread and diffi cult to control. Our community
survey revealed that, overall, community members are not in favor of increased
development along rivers and streams.
Many organizations, including state and Federal agencies, are involved
in protecting and conserving those qualities we mentioned on the lower
Rappahannock River. We work with our conservation partners to identify
sensitive wildlife habitat in need of protection or restoration. We also collaborate
in outreach, education, research, and private landowner assistance. Service land
acquisition, through either fee purchase or conservation easement from willing
sellers, is one of the most important tools we use to conserve important areas of
wildlife habitat. Up to 20,000 acres is approved for acquisition at the Rappahannock
River Valley refuge. That land acquisition program garners a lot of public interest
and attention. We heard directly from people who support our efforts to acquire
and manage important habitat areas. Others were supportive as long as we
allow public use and access on those lands. Some indicated a preference for the
purchase of conservation easements, rather than purchase in full fee title. Others
expressed concerns over the Service taking land out of the local tax base or taking
agricultural land out of production. We address those concerns in our proposed
management direction.
The following key issues and concerns arose about land protection and acquisition.
■ How can we address community concern over the loss of agricultural land
production through Service acquisition?
■ How should we prioritize lands for acquisition within the approved acquisition
boundary? Do the original acquisition priorities (1996 EA) refl ect our current
priorities? Should predictions of climate change affect our decisions?
■ How do we manage the conservation easements purchased for the refuge? In
future easement acquisitions, what rights should the Service purchase?
Our goal is to become an integral part of the socioeconomic health and quality
of life of the communities we affect. The challenge for us is to understand the
visions of the respective communities and our role in them while adhering to our
mission. We also need to determine how best to nurture and cultivate the mutually
benefi cial relationships we have developed using the resources we have available.
During public scoping, and because of our community survey, we learned
that many people are vaguely aware of the refuge, but are not particularly
knowledgeable about the opportunities and services we offer. Others mentioned
that they are noticing an increase in public awareness because of our refuge events
and programs, and media attention. Some suggested ways we might conduct
additional outreach. Others recommended additional recreational activities desired
in the local communities. To them, providing more recreational opportunities
was the best way to increase community interest and involvement in the refuge.
Finally, some who felt well informed and satisfi ed about refuge activities valued the
contribution of the refuge to the community and their quality of life.
In response to those comments and the issues below, we evaluated a range of
quality, wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities, and have proposed measures
to promote Service visibility, community understanding and support for refuge
programs.
Public Use/Community
Relations
2-6 Chapter 2. The Planning Process
Leading Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
The following are key issues or concerns that arose about public uses and
community relations.
■ How do we effectively conduct outreach to explain our regulations on beach use
on the river?
■ What administrative facilities, such as an offi ce, visitor contact facilities, and
roads are needed to manage the refuge, and where should they be located?
■ How do we improve the visibility of the Service and the refuge in the local
community?
■ How can we deal with the potentially negative impact of roaming hunting dogs
on wildlife, visitors, and neighbors?
■ What other opportunities can we provide for compatible, priority, wildlife-dependent
public uses?
Chapter 3
Existing Environment
■ Introduction
■ The Physical Landscape
■ The Cultural Landscape Setting and Land Use History
■ Current Climate
■ Air Quality
■ Water Quality
■ Regional Socio-Economic Setting
■ Refuge Administration
■ Special Use Permits, including Research
■ Refuge Natural Resources
■ Refuge Biological Resources
■ Refuge Visitor Services Program
■ Archealogical and Historical Resources
USFWS
Great spangled fritillary
Chapter 3. Existing Environment 3-1
The Physical Landscape
This chapter describes the physical, biological, and social environment of the
Rappahannock River Valley refuge. We provide descriptions of the physical
landscape, the regional setting and its history, and the refuge setting, including its
history, current administration, programs, and specifi c refuge resources. Much of
what we describe below refl ects the refuge environment as it was in 2007. Since
that time, we have been writing, compiling and reviewing this document. As such,
some minor changes likely occurred to local conditions or refuge programs as we
continued to implement under current management. However, we do not believe
those changes appreciably affect what we present below.
Our project area is part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, a drainage basin of
64,000 square miles encompassing parts of the states of Delaware, Maryland, New
York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. The
waters of that basin fl ow into the Chesapeake Bay, the nation’s largest estuary.
The watershed contains an array of habitat types, including mixed hardwood
forests typical of the Appalachian Mountains, grasslands and agricultural fi elds,
lakes, rivers, and streams, wetlands and shallow waters, and open water in tidal
rivers and the estuary. That diversity supports more than 2,700 species of plants
and animals, including Service trust resources such as endangered or threatened
species, migratory birds, and anadromous fi sh (www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/
coastpgm.htm).
The Rappahannock River is one of several rivers that fl ow into the western-side
of the Chesapeake Bay; others are the Potomac, York, and James rivers. The
Rappahannock is the geographic feature that defi nes the heart of our project area.
The river journeys 185 miles from its source in Chester Gap, a mountainous region
near Front Royal, Virginia, to its mouth where, at 3.5 miles wide, it fl ows into
the bay.
Although the entire Rappahannock River watershed comprises about 2 million
acres, our project area includes only its lower reaches, near where it enters the bay
(see chapter 1, map 1.1). The upstream boundary of our project area starts below
Fredericksburg, Virginia, and includes the geographic regions often referred to
as the Middle Peninsula and Northern Neck, encompassing the river shore up to
the drainage divides on each side. The downstream boundary of our project area
ends around Belle Isle State Park. Our entire project area, excluding the river, is
approximately 268,000 acres.
Geomorphic regions or “physiographic provinces” are broad-scale subdivisions
based on terrain texture, rock type, and geologic structure and history. Our
project area lies in the Virginia portion of the Atlantic Coastal Plain delineated by
USGS(http://tapestry.usgs.gov/physiogr/physio.html). The Virginia Department
of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) (VDGIF 2005) also uses that regional
delineation in their wildlife action plan. The Virginia coastal plain consists of a
series of terraces sloping downward toward the coast, with each terrace or scarp
representing a former shoreline (Wilson and Turbeville 2003). It is the youngest
physiographic province in the state, and consists of sedimentary deposits of sand,
clay, marl, and shell. Its principle characteristics are its low topographic relief
(except for occasional steep ravines), extensive marshes, and tidally infl uenced
rivers and creeks.
The “Fall Line” separates the Virginia coastal plain physiographic region from the
Appalachian Piedmont physiographic region to the west. That line is a low, east-facing
cliff that extends from New Jersey to the Carolinas, parallel to the Atlantic
coastline. It separates the hard, Paleozoic metamorphic rocks of the Appalachian
Piedmont on the west from the soft, gently dipping Mesozoic and Tertiary
sedimentary rocks of the Coastal Plain on the east. That erosional scarp, the site
Introduction
The Physical
Landscape
Watershed
Notable Physiographic and
Landform Features
3-2 Chapter 3. Existing Environment
The Physical Landscape
of many waterfalls, hosted fl ume- and water-wheel-powered industries in Colonial
times, and thus, helped determine the location of such major cities as Philadelphia,
Baltimore, Washington, and Richmond. Fredericksburg marks the Fall Line on the
Rappahannock River.
The Virginia Natural Heritage Program (VNHP) further subdivides the coastal
plain region into “northern,” “southern,” “inner” and “outer” Virginia coastal plain
to account for the rich variety and distinction of natural community types in the
area (http://192.206.31.52/cfprog/dnh/naturalheritage/select_prov.cfm; Wilson and
Turbeville 2003).
Those distinct natural community types are the result of local landforms and
geographic features that may appear subtle, but vary widely across the landscape.
From the main driving routes along either side of our project area boundary
(routes 3 and 17), the topography of two major landforms, the Northern Neck and
Middle Peninsula, would appear to casual observers as fl at to gently rolling.
Although that is true along the roads where farm fi elds are visible, beyond the
fi elds in the direction of the Rappahannock River or the many creek drainages,
observers can see a dramatic change in topography. The highly erodible soil layers
give way to steep ravines, some of which plummet to depths of 80 feet or more.
That is particularly true of the Fones Cliffs section of the river, where the shoreline
is breaching the Essex scarp soil type, creating steep-faced cliffs of about 100 feet.
Both the fl at uplands and the network of steep ravines are geomorphic features
that dictate the character of the Northern Neck and the Middle Peninsula. The
fl at uplands are dominated almost entirely by anthropogenic uses such as crop
agriculture, pine plantation, and landscaping nurseries, leaving very little natural
forest.
On the other hand, the rough terrain of the ravines prohibited substantial logging,
farming or development. As a result, those areas tend to be shady, forested, and
often contain spring seeps or perennial streams that eventually fl ow into the river.
They have become their own microcosm of plant and animal communities, quite
distinct from the surrounding uplands.
The rich topography of the Northern Neck and Middle Peninsula supports some
unique or increasingly rare vegetation and signifi cant natural communities. The
Nature Conservancy (TNC) of Virginia’s Chesapeake Rivers Site Conservation
Plan identifi es some of these as targets for conservation (TNC 2001). We utilized
this document and other TNC and VDGIF data to help us assess the biological
diversity and integrity of the refuge’s habitats, and consider their contribution
to those values across the larger landscape. Service policy (601 FW 3) requires
us to consider the biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health of
refuge lands during the CCP planning process to ensure the protection of a broad
spectrum of fi sh, wildlife, and habitat resources within refuge ecosystems, to
prevent additional degradation of environmental conditions, and to evaluate the
potential to restore lost or severely degraded components of the environment.
Natural community areas of conservation concern that occur, or could occur, in
the refuge area include bald cypress forests, seepage wetlands, calcareous forests,
and fl uvial terrace woodlands. Large blocks of terrestrial upland forests and tidal
freshwater ecosystems also occur there. A detailed description of those natural
communities can be found in the Virginia Natural Heritage Program (VNHP) First
Approximation classifi cation of ecological community groups of Virginia, or through
personal communications with Natural Heritage ecologists (TNC 2001).
The VNHP also identifi es ecologically important sites in or next to our project
area, many of which are similar to the TNC plan. Three hundred forty-eight
conservation sites and stream conservation units have been mapped in this
Chapter 3. Existing Environment 3-3
The Physical Landscape
physiographic region (Wilson 2003). Conservation sites are the locations of a
natural resource element of conservation concern (e.g., an endangered plant or
animal species). For elements that inhabit streams, rivers, or other large bodies of
water, the boundary is called a stream conservation unit.
Those likely to be found in our project area include coastal plain calcareous forest
and woodland, fl uvial terrace woodland, coastal plain/piedmont bottomland forest,
fl oodplain pond and pool, coastal plain depression pond, non-riverine wet hardwood
forest, coastal plain basic seepage swamp, tidal shrub swamp, tidal bald cypress
forest and woodland, and tidal hardwood swamp. Another natural community
not listed in the plan, but believed to be important from a unique ecological and
biological diversity standpoint, is coastal plain acidic seepage swamp, which is
associated with sand deposits (Allen Beldon, DNH, personal communication 2004).
Estimating what the historic natural vegetation types were, how they were
distributed, and what ecological processes infl uenced them prior to major,
human-induced disturbance, can help us evaluate future management options.
However, many ecologists caution against selecting one point in time, and instead,
recommend evaluating the “historical range of variation” for each habitat type.
According to noted ecologist Robert Askins of Connecticut College, “This approach
recognizes that the proportions of grassland, shrub land, young forests, and
old-growth forests have shifted constantly over the past few thousand years as
the climate changed and people have modifi ed the land by hunting, burning, and
farming. Preserving the biological diversity of any region requires a range of
habitat types, including those created by natural disturbances. If there are no
natural or artifi cial disturbances generating grassland, shrub lands, and young
forest, then not only will early succession obligates be in trouble, but so will mature
forest specialists that use early succession habitats at key points in their life cycles.
Only large public lands like refuges, parks, preserves can sustain the full range of
early succession and forest habitats, so in most regions land managers will need
to cooperate to ensure that these habitats are adequately represented across the
regional landscape” (Askins 2002).
A brief summary of infl uences on natural vegetation patterns across the landscape
follows.
Pre-History Infl uences
Ten to twenty million years ago, the Chesapeake Bay region
was a place of grasslands and shallow coastal waters, evidenced
by the fossil record preserved in Maryland’s Calvert Cliffs.
That gradually gave way to spruce forests and marshy tundra
as the ice age of the colder Pleistocene period began 2 million
years ago (Grumet 2000). Sea levels rose and fell with the
advance and retreat of each of the four ensuing ice ages,
causing the coastal plain to extend eastward, at least 100 miles
farther than the present day shoreline. Each melting glacier
deposited vast sheets of sand, silt, gravel and clay. Those
weathered into deep layers of acidic, sandy or silty soils of light
to medium texture, which rain easily penetrated.
In addition, river and seawater formed vast underground aquifers that today
lie from several hundreds to more than 1,000 feet deep along the western and
eastern shores of the bay (Grumet 2000). The Wisconsinan Glaciation was the last
glaciation which retreated from its maximum extent 18,000 years ago. At that time,
the bay region was a branching network of rivers and streams traversing a rolling
terrain about 300 feet above present-day sea level (Grumet 2000).
Humans (Paleo-Indian) made their fi rst appearance in the region between 18,000
and 11,500 years ago, Evidence from carbon 14 and other radiometric tests of
Major Historical Influences
Shaping Landscape
Vegetation
Barn swallow nest
USFWS
3-4 Chapter 3. Existing Environment
The Physical Landscape
cores drilled into ice age lakes and swamps, such as the Great Dismal Swamp,
suggest a colder, wetter, and largely fl ooded coastal plain at that time. The evidence
also shows that massive climatic changes transformed the region during Paleo-
Indian times, particularly in the transition from softwood to hardwood forests on
the upland portions of the Coastal Plain (Grumet 2000). Bones, teeth, and horns
found in coastal plain soils indicate that present-day wildlife residents, such
as white-tailed deer, beaver, and black bear, lived side by side with mammoths
and mastodons (Grumet 2000), caribou, long-nosed peccaries, and sharp-tailed
grouse, a species now associated with the western prairie (Askins 2002). Even sea
mammals such as walruses and seals thrived in the seas that periodically covered
the Coastal Plain (Grumet 2000).
Soil strata and coatings of ash on tree rings indicates that Paleo-Indians used fi re,
but that did not signifi cantly alter the larger trend of forest transformation from
softwoods to hardwoods as the last Ice Age withdrew (Grumet 2000). Beginning
about 10,000 years ago, oak-hickory forests began to dominate in the east as
climatic conditions became increasingly warm and dry. The coastal plain continued
to extend far beyond its current shoreline, but as glaciers melted and sea levels
rose, the inward progression of the sea coupled with an uprising of about 160 feet
of coastal plain uplands. Rising sea levels caused considerable widening of the
rivers in the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem about 8,000 years ago. In the parts
closest to the ocean, the rivers changed into tidal estuaries, which widened further
between 5,000 and 3,000 years ago and formed what is now the Chesapeake Bay
(Grumet 2000).
The continued moderation of the region’s climate encouraged the growth of mixed
hardwood forests. It promoted conditions under which freshwater wetlands and
low salt marshes could form, and submerged aquatic vegetation could thrive and
support anadromous fi sh, migratory shorebirds and waterfowl. Fire (whether
natural or started by humans) and drought during this period created park-like
woodlands and stretches of open grasslands throughout the bay area (Grumet
2000). This is the setting in which eastern Native American cultures grew and
thrived, and which facilitated English settlement.
More Contemporary Infl uences on Vegetation Patterns
The upland forests that originally covered much of the Virginia coastal plain
have been so extensively and intensively altered or cleared that it is diffi cult now
to determine with any certainty which species were most prevalent (Fleming
2006). We describe in the next section some of the human activities that caused
the current vegetation composition. Pine and oak now dominate much of the
forests, but those are early to mid-successional species that probably attained
dominance because of their adaptability to fi re and other disturbance (Abrams and
Black 2000).
Forest succession on the coastal plain typically involves pine, followed by early
successional hardwoods, then later successional hardwoods. Pine species also
invade old fi elds after agricultural abandonment, but later successional, shade-tolerant
tree species will then increase in dominance in uplands where fi re has
been suppressed. Black gum and American holly (Ilex opaca) are examples of such
species. Older stands of black gum, a fi re-sensitive species, indicate a long period
of fi re suppression (Abrams and Black 2000). Sweetgum is also an early invader
of old fi elds, but loses dominance over time from heavy mortality, due to its shade-intolerance.
It can grow to be a canopy-dominating tree during the late-succession
phase (Abrams and Black 2000). Tulip-tree invasion occurs in high abundance in
forest stands disturbed by timbering and logging, but very little in abandoned
fi elds. Unlike the adjacent Piedmont region, the endpoint of old-fi eld succession in
the Virginia coastal plain is not oak-hickory, but would more likely resemble the
beech and white-oak rich southern mixed hardwood forests farther south (Monette
and Ware 1983).
Chapter 3. Existing Environment 3-5
The Physical Landscape
Much of the contemporary forest on the uplands in our project area consists of
successional or silvicultural stands of loblolly pine or the secondary pine-hardwood
forests that follow agricultural abandonment. This supports the premise that
the project area and surrounding landscape has undergone extensive, continued
disturbance except in the less accessible areas, such as bottomlands and ravines,
where later succession stands have established.
Alternating periods of drought-like years, years of high rainfall, or occasional hard
winters, are the climatic conditions that have had the most far-reaching impacts
in the project area and the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Each of those conditions
has its respective effect on the landscape, primarily in instigating fl ooding and
wildfi res, which historically were the principal natural ecological processes
infl uencing the type, age classes, and distribution of natural community types.
The project area is not as affected by hurricanes as lands farther south, nor by
tornados as in the mid-west, although severe weather can deliver spikes in rainfall
and high winds here that lead to localized fl ooding and tree damage.
Over the past 54 years the average maximum temperature was 68.7°F, while the
average minimum temperature was 47.0°F. The average total precipitation in
inches over the same years was 43.3 (Southeast Regional Climate Center; http://
radar.meas.nscu.edu/cgi-bin/sercc/cliMAIN.pl?va8894; accessed August 14, 2007).
In 2004–2007, record-breaking heat waves have reached temperatures as high as
102°F, as in August 2007.
Flood information over the last 50 years for the three counties that contain most
of the refuge tracts—Essex, Richmond, and Westmoreland counties—show
two major fl oods in Richmond County in July 1995 and September 1999. Essex
County experienced three fl oods from 1994 to 1999. Four fl oods were reported for
Westmoreland County from 1999 to 2004, including the fl ooding from Hurricane
Floyd in 1999 (National Climatic Data Center, (http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/
wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms; accessed March 27, 2006).
Between 1997 and 2007, several droughts occurred in the project area for the
same three counties. Richmond County experienced drought-like conditions from
July through November 1998. Essex County experienced a dry period from May
through September 1997, and Westmoreland County experienced drought that
same year from July through November. Dry conditions prevailed throughout our
project area in the summer and fall of 2002, although they were not listed in the
National Climatic Data system, followed by a record wet season from April to June
2003 (NCDC 2006). Another dry period occurred in 2007.
Hurricane Isabel struck the project area in September 2003 with sustained wind
speeds of 40 to 60 mph. The ensuing storm surge pounded and fl ooded the north-and
northeast-facing shorelines of the Northern Neck and Middle Peninsula,
destroying residences and businesses. It blew down thousands of trees across the
western side of the Chesapeake Bay. Approximately 10,000 trees fell in the city
of Richmond (Richmond Times Dispatch, Sept. 28, 2003). Foresters and other
scientists suggested that more trees fell than expected because of root damage
caused by the 2002 drought, which weakened the root systems, and because of the
heavy rains of 2003, which loosened the soils (Richmond Times Dispatch, 2003;
Watts 2003, personal communication). The trees succumbed to the long duration of
wind pressure and the resulting storm surge.
Hurricane Ernesto had become a tropical depression by the time it arrived in
Virginia in September 2006, but it held sustained winds of about 60 mph, damaging
homes, shorelines, and trees. The tree loss due to storms is likely a normal event;
3-6 Chapter 3. Existing Environment
The Cultural Landscape Setting and Land Use History
however, ever-dwindling habitat amplifi es the loss of bald eagle nesting and
roosting territory due to storms.
Spring 2004 was abnormally cool and rainy, which may account for the poor seed
crop of American holly and eastern red cedar throughout the Northern Neck in the
winter of 2004–2005 (Spencer personal observation), as extremely damp conditions
can cause poor pollen viability and decreased seed production.
No major wildfi res are listed for the three major counties in the refuge project area
in the past 50 years. However, the fi rst few months of 2006 witnessed a prolonged
period of drought-like conditions that prompted state authorities to issue red-fl ag
fi re warnings and burn bans. Several small wildfi res ignited throughout central and
northern Virginia, Northern Neck, and Middle Peninsula in February and March
(Spencer, personal observation; and, general news media). Drought like conditions
and wildfi res hazards also occurred in 2007.
During the Late Woodland Era (about 1,100 years ago), a variety of southern
mixed hardwood forests grew in the Coastal Plain, containing giant trees hundreds
of years old forming a closed canopy and an open understory. Native American
populations began to live in larger communities around this time, and large
villages appeared, supported by the farming of beans, squash, and corn. Most were
situated near sources of water and fertile soils. Where forests grew on fe