Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and the Environmental Assessment

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Supawna Meadows
National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and the Environmental Assessment
September 2010
Front cover:
Supawna Meadows South of Davis Tract
Brian Marsh/USWFS
Northern Harrier
©Mike Dazenbaker
Diamondback Terrapin
Ryan Hagerty/USFWS
Great Blue Heron
Lee Carney
Back cover:
Supawna Meadows South of Davis Tract
Brian Marsh/USWFS
This blue goose, designed by
J.N. “Ding” Darling, has become
the symbol of the National Wildlife
Refuge System.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting,
and enhancing 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.
i
Supawna Meadows National Wildlife
Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation
Plan and the Environmental
Assessment
September 2010
Refuge Vision
Statement
Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge will continue to provide
essential tidal marsh habitat to feed and shelter migrating
waterfowl and to feed nearby colonial-nesting wading birds, thereby
maintaining its significant role as part of the Delaware Bayshore
system of wetlands and upland buffers that is one of the most
important migratory bird habitats in the nation.
The refuge will continue to serve as an oasis of native biotic
communities within sight of the burgeoning industrial,
transportation, and residential developments of the lower Delaware
River Basin and South Jersey by providing an array of wetland and
upland habitats that support a diverse community of breeding and
migrating birds, native mammals, and other species.
Refuge visitors will be able to hunt and fish, observe and photograph
wildlife, and learn of the ecological importance and diversity of
wildlife at Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge. They will
understand the refuge as part of a larger network of protected lands
within the National Wildlife Refuge System, set aside specifically for
wildlife.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
iii
Supawna Meadows National Wildlife
Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation
Plan and the Environmental
Assessment
September 2010
Summary
Type of Action:
Administrative – Development of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
Location: Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge
Salem County, NJ
Administrative Headquarters: Cape May National Wildlife Refuge
Cape May Courthouse, NJ
Responsible Official: Marvin Moriarty, Regional Director, Region 5, Northeast
For Further Information: Lia McLaughlin, Natural Resource Planner
Northeast Regional Office
300 Westgate Center Drive
Hadley, MA 01035
(413) 253-8575
northeastplanning@fws.gov
This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and the Environmental Assessment (EA)
analyzes three alternatives for managing the 3,016 acre Supawna Meadows National Wildlife
Refuge (NWR) over the next 15 years. This document also contains seven appendixes that provide
additional information supporting our analysis. Following is a brief overview of each alternative:
Alternative A: This alternative is referred to as our “No Action” or “Current Management”
alternative, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under this alternative,
no major changes to our biological, public use or administrative management practices would occur.
Alternative B: This is the Service’s preferred alternative. It represents the objectives and strategies
recommended by the planning team for best achieving the refuge’s purposes, vision and goals and
responding to public issues. Under this alternative, we focus refuge management on restoring
refuge tidal habitats to support Federal trust resources and species of conservation concern in the
area. Our Visitor Services program would be enhanced to provide more opportunities for wildlife
observation, photography, hunting, fishing, environmental education, and interpretation.
Alternative C: Under this alternative, we would close Supawna Meadows NWR to all public uses
and cease all habitat management activities. Cape May NWR staff would conduct semi-annual site
visits.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents v
Refuge Vision Statement ................................................................................................................................... i
Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ iii
Chapters
Chapter 1 Introduction and Purpose of and Need for Action
Introduction......................................................................................................................................................1-1
The Purpose of and Need for Action ............................................................................................................1-2
Project Area.....................................................................................................................................................1-3
The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Legal Mandates Guiding Planning........................1-7
National and Regional Conservation Plans Guiding the Project............................................................1-10
Refuge Purposes and Land Acquisition History .......................................................................................1-16
Refuge Vision Statement- ............................................................................................................ 1-18
Refuge Goals............................................................................................................................... 1-18
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process..............................................................................1-19
Issues and Opportunities ............................................................................................................. 1-21
Chapter 2 Affected Environment
Introduction......................................................................................................................................................2-1
Physical Environment.....................................................................................................................................2-1
Regional Setting ..............................................................................................................................................2-1
Socioeconomic Setting..................................................................................................................................2-7
Refuge Administration....................................................................................................................................2-9
Biological Resources ...................................................................................................................................2-11
Wildlife-Dependent Public Use ...................................................................................................................2-24
Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................................................2-25
Chapter 3 Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative
Introduction......................................................................................................................................................3-1
Formulating Alternatives Relating Goals, Objectives, and Strategies............................................ 3-1
Actions Common to All Alternatives .............................................................................................................3-3
Actions Common to Alternatives A and B....................................................................................................3-5
Alternative A - Continue Current Management (No Action)...................................................................3-14
Alternative B - Focus on Species of Conservation Concern (Service-Preferred Alternative)..........3-35
Alternative C - Cease Management and Close Refuge to Public Uses ................................................3-68
Comparison of Management Actions under the Alternatives................................................................3-70
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Introduction......................................................................................................................................................4-1
Table of Contents
vi Table of Contents
Impacts in the Refuge Vicinity....................................................................................................................... 4-3
Refuge-Specific Impacts............................................................................................................................. 4-15
Soil Impacts ................................................................................................................................. 4-15
Tidal Marsh Impacts ................................................................................................................... 4-19
Non-tidal Wetland and Successional Habitat Impacts......................................................... 4-21
Grassland Habitat Impacts......................................................................................................... 4-22
Forest Habitat Impacts................................................................................................................ 4-24
Waterbird and Waterfowl Impacts........................................................................................... 4-27
Breeding, Migrating, and Wintering Bird Impacts................................................................. 4-30
Impacts to Other Native Wildlife............................................................................................... 4-34
Invertebrate Impacts................................................................................................................... 4-36
Impacts to Biological Integrity, Biological Diversity, and
Environmental Health (BIDEH)................................................................................................... 4-38
Cultural Resources Impacts....................................................................................................... 4-40
Public Use Management – Hunting.......................................................................................... 4-41
Public Use Management - Fishing and Crabbing................................................................... 4-47
Public Use Management - Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Environmental
Education and Interpretation..................................................................................................... 4-50
Cumulative Impacts...................................................................................................................................... 4-53
Summary of the Impacts of the Alternatives............................................................................................. 4-58
Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination with Others
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 5-1
Planning to Protect Land and Resources .................................................................................................... 5-1
Contact Information........................................................................................................................................ 5-2
Chapter 6 List of Preparers
Members of the Core Planning Team................................................................................................6-1
Assistance from Other Service Personnel ........................................................................................6-1
Glossary (including the list of acronyms)
Glossary..........................................................................................................................................................GL-1
Acronyms......................................................................................................................................................AC-1
Literature Cited…………….......................................................................................................................................................LC-1
Appendices
Appendix A. Species of Conservation Concern ........................................................................................................................ A-1
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations
Findings of Appropriateness........................................................................................................................ B-1
Bicycling........................................................................................................................................ B-1
Table of Contents
Table of Contents vii
Dog Walking.................................................................................................................................. B-3
Geocaching................................................................................................................................... B-5
Horseback Riding......................................................................................................................... B-7
Jogging .......................................................................................................................................... B-9
Non-Wildlife Dependent Group Gatherings ........................................................................... B-11
Organized or Facility-Supported Picknicking......................................................................... B-13
Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations........................................................... B-15
Finns Point Rear Range Light Visitation .................................................................................. B-15
Scientific Research .................................................................................................................... B-21
Compatibility Determinations..................................................................................................................... B-27
Release of Weevil for Biocontrol of Mile-a-Minute Weed.................................................. B-27
Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Environmental
Interpretation and Education .................................................................................................... B-32
Fishing and Crabbing.................................................................................................................. B-37
Public Hunting of Waterfowl..................................................................................................... B-43
White-tailed Deer Archery Hunt............................................................................................... B-49
Appendix C. Refuge Operations Needs System (RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance
Management System (SAMMS)
Refuge Operations Needs System (RONS)................................................................................................. C-1
Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS)................................................................ C-3
Appendix D. Wilderdness Review .............................................................................................................................................. D-1
Appendix E. Refuge Staffing Charts for Alternatives.................................................................................................................E-1
Appendix F. Fire Management Program Guidance....................................................................................................................F-1
Appendix G. Application of the Sea-Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM 5.1) to Supawna Meadows NWR ...... G-1
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Environmental Protection Agency Air Quality Standards .......................................................................2-3
Table 2.2 Ozone Measurements Closest to Supawna Meadows NWR.................................................................2-4
Table 2.3 Supawna Meadows NWR Revenue Sharing Payments..........................................................................2-8
Table 2.4 Land Acquisition History for Supawna Meadows NWR.........................................................................2-9
Table 2.5 Habitats and Refuge Acres for Supawna Meadows NWR .................................................................. 2-13
Table 2.6 Supawna Meadows NWR Managed Impoundments ............................................................................2-14
Table 2.7 Important Invasive Plant Species in Supawna Meadows NWR..........................................................2-19
Table 3.1 Land Cover Acres for Supawna Meadows NWR under Alternative A ...............................................3-15
Table 3.2 Predicted Land Cover Acres for Supawna Meadows NWR under Alternative B.............................3-35
Table 3.3 Baseline Flora and Fauna Surveys to be Completed under Alternative B..........................................3-38
Table 3.4 Other Priority Surveys Indentified During Public Scoping ....................................................................3-39
Table 3.5 Summary Comparison of Management Action by Alternative .............................................................3-39
Table 4.1 Landscape Contexts for Impacts Analysis for Supawma Meadows NWR .........................................4-1
Table 4.2 Summary and Comparison of Impacts for the Three Alternatives.......................................................4-59
Table of Contents
viii Table of Contents
List of Figures and Maps
Figure 1.1 The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process .......................................................................... 1-19
Map 1.1 Supawna Meadows NWR Regional Location............................................................................................. 1-4
Map 1.2 Supawna Meadows NWR Location ............................................................................................................. 1-5
Map 1.3 Supawna Meadows NWR Land Status........................................................................................................ 1-6
Map 2.1 Ecoregion Location of Supawna Meadows NWR in the New Jersey/Delaware Subregion.............. 2-2
Map 2.2 Ecoregion Location of Supawna Meadows NWR in the
New Jersey Southern Piedmont Plains Zone ........................................................................................................... 2-2
Map 2.3 Regional Conservation Lands ........................................................................................................................ 2-6
Map 2.4 Supawna Meadows NWR Impoundments ................................................................................................ 2-15
Map 3.1 Land Cover for Supawna Meadows NWR under Alternative A............................................................. 3-32
Map 3.2 Hunting, Fishing, and Crabbing Areas for Supawna Meadows NWR under Alternative A .............. 3-33
Map 3.3 Other Public Uses for Supawna Meadows NWR under Alternative A................................................. 3-34
Map 3.4 Predicted Land Cover for Supawna Meadows NWR under Alternative B.......................................... 3-65
Map 3.5 Hunting, Fishing, and Crabbing Areas for Supawna Meadows NWR under Alternative B .............. 3-66
Map 3.6 Other Public Uses for Supawna Meadows NWR under Alternative B................................................. 3-67
Chapter 1
The 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
our Planning
 Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project
  Refuge Establishment Purposes and its Land Acquisition History
 Refuge Administration
 Refuge Operational Plans (“Step-down” Plans)
 Refuge Vision Statement and Goals
 The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
 Issues
 Issues Outside the Scope of this Analysis or Not Completely Within the
Jurisdiction of the Service
Impoundment at Supawna Meadows NWR
USFWS
Introduction
Chapter 1. Introduction and the Purpose of and Need for Action 1-1
Introduction
This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and the
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Supawna Meadows National
Wildlife Refuge (Supawna Meadows NWR; refuge) combines two
documents required by Federal laws: a CCP, required by the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105–57;
Refuge Improvement Act); and an EA, required by the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (Public Law 91-
190). This document also conforms to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service, we, our) policy and legal mandates (see “The Service, its
Policies and Legal Mandates,” below).
Our regional director’s final decision, based on this combined document,
will produce a CCP to guide management decisions and actions on the
refuge during the next 15 years. We will also use it as a tool to help the
public, natural resource agencies of New Jersey and Delaware, and our
other conservation partners understand and support refuge
management priorities.
Chapter 1, “The Purpose and Need for Action,” sets the stage for
chapters 2 through 4.
The chapter:
 describes the purpose and need for a CCP/EA for the refuge;
 identifies national and regional mandates and plans that influenced
this document;
 highlights establishing purposes and land acquisition history of the
refuge;
 presents our vision and goals for the refuge;
 explains the planning process we followed in developing this
document; and,
 describes the key issues, concerns, and opportunities it addresses.
Chapter 2, “Description of the Affected Environment,” describes the
physical, biological, and human environment.
Chapter 3, “Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred
Alternative,” describes varying management strategies for meeting
refuge goals and objectives and responding to key issues of conservation
and public use.
Chapter 4, “Environmental Consequences,” evaluates the
environmental consequences of implementing each of the proposed
management alternatives.
Chapter 5, “Consultation and Coordination with Others,” summarizes
how we involved the public and our conservation partners in the
planning process.
Chapter 6, “List of Preparers,” credits Service and non-Service
contributors.
Table of Contents
1-2 Chapter 1. Introduction and the Purpose of and Need for Action
Appendixes provide additional documentation and reference
information we used in compiling this document.
The Purpose of and
Need for Action
Our goal is to develop a CCP for the Supawna Meadows NWR that best
achieves the refuge’s establishing purposes, vision and goals;
contributes to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System
(Refuge System); adheres to relevant Service policies and mandates;
addresses key public and conservation issues; and uses sound principles
of fish and wildlife science.
NEPA regulations require us to evaluate a reasonable range of
alternatives that includes a preferred alternative, the no action
alternative, and, if deemed appropriate, one or more other reasonable
alternatives. Alternative A (current management) satisfies the NEPA
requirement of a “No Action” alternative, which we define as
“continuing current management.” It describes our existing
management priorities and activities, and serves as a baseline for
comparing and contrasting Alternatives B and C. The Service’s
preferred alternative is presented in alternative B. One other
reasonable alternative is presented in alternative C. This draft CCP/EA
describes the foreseeable impacts of all three alternatives on the
socioeconomic, physical, cultural, and biological environments in the
project area. We designed each alternative with the potential to be fully
developed into a final CCP.
Our purpose in developing a CCP for Supawna Meadows NWR is to
establish management direction that best meets the following goals:
Goal 1: Protect, enhance and restore biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of tidally influenced habitats to support
native wildlife and plant communities including species of
conservation concern.
Goal 2: Protect, enhance, and restore biological integrity, diversity and
environmental health of upland habitats to support native
wildlife and plant communities with emphasis on migrating and
wintering birds and other species of concern.
Goal 3: Protect, enhance and restore biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of non-tidal wetland habitats to support
native wildlife and plant communities with emphasis on
breeding, migrating and overwintering birds and other species
of conservation concern.
Goal 4: Provide opportunities for compatible, high-quality, wildlife-dependent
public uses.
Goal 5: Protect cultural resources on the refuge.
Goal 6: Enhance refuge management through partnerships, friends,
volunteers, and community outreach.
Developing a CCP is vital for the future management of every national
wildlife refuge. A CCP provides strategic management direction for the
next 15 years by:
The Purpose of and Need for Action
Chapter 1. Introduction and the Purpose of and Need for Action 1-3
 providing a clear statement of desired future conditions for habitat,
wildlife, visitor services, staffing, and facilities;
 providing State agencies, refuge neighbors, visitors, and partners
with a clear
 understanding of the reasons for management actions;
 ensuring refuge management reflects the policies and goals of the
Refuge System and legal mandates;
 ensuring the compatibility of current and future public use;
 providing long-term continuity and direction for refuge management;
and,
 providing direction for staffing, operations, maintenance, and annual
budget requests.
The need to develop a CCP for the refuge is threefold. First, the Refuge
Improvement Act requires that all refuges have a CCP in place to help
fulfill the mission of the Refuge System. Second, the refuge was
administratively complexed with Cape May NWR (located in Cape May
Court House, New Jersey) in March of 2004 to increase management
efficiencies, which resulted in changes to on-site staffing. The CCP for
Cape May NWR was completed separately in June 2004. Third, there is
currently no master plan establishing priorities and ensuring consistent
and integrated management for Supawna Meadows NWR. A vision
statement, goals, objectives, and management strategies are needed to
effectively manage the refuge’s natural resources. Public and partner
involvement is critical to resolving issues related to public use, cultural
resources, and habitat management.
Project Area
Supawna Meadows NWR is located along the shoreline of the Delaware
River where it widens to become the Delaware Bay estuary (Map 1.1) in
Salem County, New Jersey (Map 1.2). The refuge currently includes
3,016 acres of tidal waters and marsh1, grassland, shrubland, and forest
habitats. The approved refuge acquisition boundary (Map 1.3)
encompasses approximately 4,527 acres along the Upper Delaware Bay
and Salem River in Pennsville Township, New Jersey. The refuge
boundaries are roughly defined by the Delaware Bay, Salem River, and
Fort Mott Road.
Supawna Meadows NWR was originally established in 1971 as the
Goose Pond addition to the Killcohook Migratory Bird Refuge.
Killcohook Migratory Bird Refuge (also referred to as the Killcohook
Coordination Area) was established by Executive Order 6582 on
February 3, 1934. The lands acquired as the Goose Pond addition were
renamed Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge and officially
separated from Killcohook Migratory Bird Refuge on April 10, 1974. On
October 30, 1998 the Service’s jurisdiction over Killcohook Migratory
Bird Refuge was revoked (Public Law 105-312, Sec. 203).
1The state of New Jersey retains ownership over open tidal waters below the mean high tide. In this document, when we refer to
Service ownership, or describe refuge management actions in tidal waters, we generally mean tidal marsh areas and areas
above mean high tide.
Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Project Area Map 1.1
1-4 Chapter 1. Introduction and the Purpose of and Need for Action
Map 1.2 Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Location
Chapter 1. Introduction and the Purpose of and Need for Action 1-5
Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Land Status Map 1.3
1-6 Chapter 1. Introduction and the Purpose of and Need for Action
The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Legal Mandates Guiding Planning
Chapter 1. Introduction and the Purpose of and Need for Action 1-7
The Service and the
Refuge System
Policies and Legal
Mandates Guiding
Planning
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and Its Mission
This section presents hierarchically, from the national level to the local
level, highlights of Service policy, legal mandates, and existing regional,
State, and local resource plans that directly influenced development of
this draft CCP/EA.
The Service, part of the Department of the Interior, administers the
National Wildlife Refuge System. The Service mission is:
Working with others, to conserve, protect and enhance fish,
wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing
benefit of the American people.
Congress entrusts the Service with the conservation and protection of
national resources such as migratory birds and fish, Federal-listed
endangered or threatened species, inter-jurisdictional fish, and certain
marine mammals. The Service also manages national wildlife refuges
and national fish hatcheries, enforces Federal wildlife laws and
international treaties on importing and exporting wildlife, assists with
State fish and wildlife programs, and helps other countries develop
wildlife conservation programs.
The Service manual contains the standing and continuing directives to
implement its authorities, responsibilities and activities. You can access
it at http://www.fws.gov/policy/manuals/. Special Service directives
affecting the rights of citizens or the authorities of other agencies are
published separately in the Code of Federal Regulations, and are not
duplicated in the Service manual.
The National Wildlife
Refuge System and its
Mission
The Refuge System is the world's largest collection of lands and waters
set aside specifically for conserving wildlife and protecting ecosystems.
Since its inception in 1903, the Refuge System has grown to over 550
national wildlife refuges and other lands encompassing more than 150
million acres (USFWS 2009a). The Refuge System has interests in
every state and several island territories. Each year, more than 34
million visitors hunt, fish, observe and photograph wildlife, or
participate in environmental education or interpretation activities on
refuges, generating almost $1.7 billion annually (Carver and Caudill
2007). More detailed information on the Refuge System can be found on
the Service’s website at http://www.fws.gov/refuges/.
In 1997, Congress passed the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act (Refuge Improvement Act; Public Law 105-57). The
Refuge Improvement Act established a unifying mission for the Refuge
System, a new process for determining compatible public use activities
on refuges, and required CCPs for all refuges. It states that, first and
foremost, the Refuge System must focus on wildlife conservation. It
further states that the Refuge System mission, coupled with the
purpose(s) for which a refuge was established, will provide the principal
management direction for 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 fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their
The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Legal Mandates Guiding Planning
1-8 Chapter 1. Introduction and the Purpose of and Need for Action
habitats within the United States for the benefit of present
and future generations of Americans (Refuge Improvement
Act; Public Law 105–57).
In addition, the Refuge Improvement Act requires that all existing or
proposed public uses of a refuge must be compatible with refuge
purpose(s). The refuge manager determines compatibility after
evaluating an activity��s potential impact on refuge resources, and
insuring that it does not materially detract from, or interfere with,
refuge purpose(s). This act also stipulates six wildlife-dependent public
uses that are to receive enhanced consideration in CCPs: hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental
education and interpretation.
Fulfilling the Promise
During the late 1980s and 1990s, changes in the guiding mission and
vision for the Refuge System, combined with growing concerns for the
needs of fish, wildlife, and plants, underscored the need for the Service
to articulate what the Refuge System would be over the next century. In
1997, the Service initiated a yearlong process involving four teams of
Service employees who examined the Refuge System within the
framework of Wildlife and Habitat, People, and Leadership. The teams
completed a draft report that focused on these four key areas and was
at the center of the first-ever Refuge System Conference in Keystone,
Colorado in October 1998. Every refuge manager in the country, other
Service employees, and scores of conservation organizations attended
the conference. The final report, “Fulfilling the Promise: The National
Wildlife Refuge System, Visions for Wildlife, Habitat, People, and
Leadership” (USFWS 1999), was completed in 1999. Many “Promises
Teams” formed to develop strategies for implementing the 42
recommendations of the final report. Information from teams such as
Wildlife and Habitat, Goals and Objectives, Strategic Growth of the
Refuge System, Invasive Species, and Inventory and Monitoring helped
guide the development of the goals, strategies and actions in this draft
CCP/EA.
Refuge System Planning
Policy
This policy establishes 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,
which, when implemented, will achieve refuge purposes; help fulfill the
Refuge System mission; maintain and, where appropriate, restore the
ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; help achieve
the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and meet
other mandates. This policy helps to ensure that CCPs are founded on
principles of sound fish and wildlife management and available science,
and are consistent with legal mandates and our other policies,
guidelines, and planning documents. Above all else, it helps ensure that
wildlife comes first on national wildlife refuges (602 FW 1, 2, 3).
Appropriate Refuge Uses
Policy
This policy provides a national framework and procedure for refuge
managers to follow in deciding whether uses are appropriate on a
refuge. It also clarifies and expands on the compatibility policy (603 FW
2.10D), which describes when refuge managers should deny a proposed
use without determining compatibility. When we find a use is
appropriate, we must then determine if the use is compatible before we
allow it on a refuge. This policy applies to all proposed and existing uses
The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Legal Mandates Guiding Planning
Chapter 1. Introduction and the Purpose of and Need for Action 1-9
in the Refuge System only when we have jurisdiction over the use, and
does not apply to refuge management activities or situations where
reserved rights or legal mandates provide we must allow certain uses
(603 FW 1). The appropriate use requirements of the Refuge
Improvement Act were adopted in the Service’s Final Appropriate
Refuge Uses Policy, published June 26, 2006 (Federal Register, Vol. 71,
No. 122, pp. 36408-36418). Appendix B further describes the
Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy and describes its relationship to the
CCP process.
Compatibility Policy
Federal law and Service policy provide the direction and planning
framework to protect the Refuge System from incompatible or harmful
human activities and ensure that Americans can enjoy its lands and
waters. The Refuge Improvement Act is the key legislation regarding
management of public uses and compatibility. The act requires that all
existing or proposed public uses of a refuge must be compatible with
refuge purpose(s). Specifically, for a use to be found compatible, it must
not “materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the
mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge” (Refuge
Improvement Act; Public Law 105–57).
The compatibility requirements of the Refuge Improvement Act were
adopted in the USFWS Final Compatibility Regulations and Final
Compatibility Policy, published October 18, 2000 (Federal Register, Vol.
65, No. 202, pp. 62458-62496). That Compatibility Rule changed or
modified Service regulations contained in chapter 50, parts 25, 26, and
29 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The compatibility determinations
for the Supawna Meadows NWR can be found in appendix B along with
additional information on the process. The policy and regulations can be
viewed online at
http://www.fws.gov/hanfordreach/documents/compatibility.pdf.
Maintaining Biological
Integrity, Diversity, and
Environmental Health
Policy
This policy provides guidance on maintaining or restoring the biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System,
including the protection of a broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and
habitat resources found 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
to restore lost or severely degraded environmental components. It also
provides guidelines for dealing with external threats to the biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health of a refuge and its
ecosystem (601 FW 3).
Wildlife-Dependent
Recreation Policy
The Refuge Improvement Act establishes six wildlife-dependent priority
public uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and
environmental education and interpretation. The Refuge Improvement
Act further states that, if compatible, these six public uses are to
receive enhanced consideration over other public uses in refuge
planning and management. The Wildlife-Dependent Recreation Policy
explains how we will provide visitors with opportunities for those
priority public uses on units of the Refuge System and how we will
facilitate the priority public uses (605 FW 1-7).
Other Legal and National
Policy Mandates
Although Service and Refuge System policy and each refuge's purpose
provide the foundation for management, the administration of national
The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Legal Mandates Guiding Planning
1-10 Chapter 1. Introduction and the Purpose of and Need for Action
wildlife refuges conforms to a variety of other Federal laws (e.g.,
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Endangered Species Act, Wilderness Act,
Archaeological Resources Protection Act, National Historic Protection
Act), Executive Orders, treaties, interstate compacts, and regulations
pertaining to the conservation and protection of natural and cultural
resources. The “Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the
USFWS” lists these and can be viewed on line at
http://www.fws.gov/laws/Lawsdigest.html.
Wild and Scenic River
Review
There are no rivers or segments of rivers that qualify for review within
the boundary of the refuge; therefore, a wild and scenic river review
was not conducted for this draft CCP/EA.
National and
Regional
Conservation Plans
Guiding the Project
New Jersey Wildlife
Action Plan (revised 2008)
In late 2001, the U.S. Congress passed the Department of the Interior
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2002 (Appropriations Act;
Public Law 107- 63) which created the State Wildlife Grants (SWG)
program. State Wildlife Grants are available to State fish and wildlife
agencies “for the development and implementation of programs for the
benefit of wildlife and their habitat, including species that are not
hunted or fished.” To continue receiving SWG money, each state was
required to develop a Wildlife Action Plan (WAP; officially known as a
Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy) focusing on the species
of greatest conservation need by October 1, 2005. To satisfy this Federal
requirement, the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife (NJDFW), in
collaboration with the general public; New Jersey conservation groups;
and other stakeholders, developed the New Jersey WAP for the
conservation of the State’s species of greatest conservation need.
Originally submitted in 2005, the most recent draft is dated January
23, 2008 (NJDFW 2008a).
To better assess conservation needs, goals, and priorities, the New
Jersey WAP uses the five landscape regions (or ecoregions) and 26
conservation zones already identified in the State’s Landscape Project
(NJDFW 2008b). It identifies nearly 200 Species of Greatest
Conservation Need, as well as identifying habitat needs and priorities
for each region and conservation zone. We discuss the Landscape
Project in more detail below. The refuge’s tidal marshes supply
important resting, feeding, and over-wintering habitat for colonial
waterbirds, freshwater wetland birds, and many other special concern
wildlife species identified by the State. We used this plan to help
develop habitat management goals, objectives, and strategies, and in
developing the list of Species of Conservation Concern in appendix A.
North American
Waterfowl Management
Plan (updated 2004)
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) is
designed to promote partnership-based habitat conservation for
waterfowl and other wetland birds. This plan was first developed in
1986 and has been revised twice, most recently in 2004 (USFWS
2004a). Another revision is planned for 2011/2012. The first NAWMP
established “joint venture” partnerships across the country (USFWS
1986). Joint venture partnerships involving Federal, State and
provincial governments, tribal nations, local businesses, conservation
organizations, and individual citizens are assembled for the purpose of
protecting habitat and species. Currently, there are 18 habitat-focused
joint ventures in the US and three species-focused joint ventures.
Supawna Meadows NWR falls within the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture
National and Regional Conservation Plans Guiding the Project
Chapter 1. Introduction and the Purpose of and Need for Action 1-11
(ACJV). The current mission of the ACJV is to “…provide a forum for
Federal, State, regional and local partners to coordinate and improve
effectiveness of bird conservation planning and implementation in the
Atlantic Flyway region of the United States” (ACJV 2004).
The ACJV has developed several plans to help step-down the goals and
objectives identified by NAWMP including the ACJV Waterfowl
Implementation Plans (ACJV 1988, ACJV 2005) and the ACJV
Strategic Plan (ACJV 2004). The most recent ACJV Waterfowl
Implementation Plan (ACJV 2005) identifies several focus areas, i.e.,
habitat complexes that are priorities for waterfowl conservation. Seven
focus areas have been identified in New Jersey. Portions of the
Supawna Meadows NWR fall within one of these focus areas, called the
Delaware Bayshores Marshes Focus Area.
North American
Waterbird Conservation
Plan (2002) and Mid-
Atlantic/New
England/Maritimes
(MANEM) Waterbird
Conservation Plan
(Review Draft 2006)
The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (Kushlan et al.
2002) represents a partnership among individuals and institutions with
the interest in and responsibility for conserving colonial nesting
waterbirds and their habitats. The partnership, known as Waterbird
Conservation for the Americas, shares a vision that the distribution,
diversity, and abundance of populations and habitats of breeding,
migratory, and non-breeding waterbirds are sustained or restored
throughout the lands and waters of North America, Central America,
and the Caribbean (Kushlan et al. 2002). It provides a framework for
conserving and managing colonially nesting water-dependent birds. The
plan also facilitates continent-wide planning and monitoring, national,
State, and provincial conservation, regional coordination, and local
habitat protection and management.
Sixteen waterbird planning regions were identified to allow for
planning at a scale that is practical yet provides a landscape-level
perspective. Supawna Meadows NWR falls within the Mid-Atlantic/New
England/Maritimes (MANEM) region. To facilitate waterbird
conservation in the MANEM region of the United States and Canada, a
partnership of organizations and individuals has drafted a regional
waterbird conservation plan for 2006 – 2010. According to the MANEM
Waterbird Conservation Plan, 74 waterbird species utilize habitats in
the MANEM region for breeding, migrating and wintering (MANEM
Waterbird Working Group 2006). Avian families that occur within the
region include loons, grebes, shearwaters, storm-petrels, boobies,
pelicans, cormorants, herons, ibises, rails, gulls, terns, skuas, jaegers
and alcids. Summarized information on waterbirds and their habitats
from this plan provides a regional perspective for local conservation
action. We used this plan to help develop objectives and strategies for
goals 1 and 3.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Birds of
Conservation Concern
(2008)
The Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) identifies nongame migratory
birds that, without strong conservation action, are likely to become
candidates for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act
(USFWS 2008a). The BCC compiles the highest ranking species of
conservation concern from these major nongame bird conservation
plans: Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan
(Rich et al. 2004), the United States Shorebird Conservation Plan
(Brown et al. 2001), and the North American Waterbird Conservation
Plan (Kushlan et al. 2002). We used the BCC list in compiling appendix
National and Regional Conservation Plans Guiding the Project
1-12 Chapter 1. Introduction and the Purpose of and Need for Action
A and to help focus on which species might warrant special
management attention.
U.S. Shorebird
Conservation Plan (2001,
2nd Edition) and North
Atlantic Regional
Shorebird Plan (2000)
Concerns about shorebirds led to the creation of the U.S. Shorebird
Conservation Plan (Brown et al. 2001). Developed as a partnership with
individuals and organizations throughout the United States, the plan
presents conservation goals for each United States region, identifies
important habitat conservation and research needs, and proposes
education and outreach programs to increase public awareness of
shorebirds and of threats to them.
In the Northeast, the North Atlantic Regional Shorebird Plan (USFWS
2004b) was drafted to step-down the goals of the continental plan to
smaller scales to identify priority species, species goals, habitats, and
prioritize implementation projects. We used both plans in developing
our objectives and strategies for goals 1 and 3.
Partners-in-Flight Bird
Conservation Plan:
Physiographic Area 44,
Mid-Atlantic Coastal
Plain (1999)
Partners in Flight (PIF) began in 1990 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. The mission of PIF is to help species
at risk, keep common birds common, and encourage voluntary
partnerships for birds, habitats, and people (PIF 2009). The foundation
of PIF’s long-term strategy is a series of scientifically based bird
conservation plans using physiographic areas as planning units. 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 include habitat loss, population trends, and
the vulnerability of a species and its habitats to regional and local
threats.
Supawna Meadows NWR lies in Physiographic Area 44, the Mid-
Atlantic Coastal Plain. The PIF plan for this region was completed in
1999 (Watts 1999). We used this plan in compiling appendix A and to
help develop our habitat goals, objectives, and management strategies
for the refuge.
Mid-Atlantic/ Southern
New England Bird
Conservation Region (BCR
30) Final Implementation
Plan (2008)
Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) originated from the North American
Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI). NABCI is a coalition of many
governmental agencies, private organizations, academic organizations,
and private industry leaders in Canada, the United States, and Mexico
(NABCI 2009). It was formed to address the need for coordinated bird
conservation that will benefit all birds in all habitats. NABCI’s
approach to bird conservation is regionally based, biologically driven,
and landscape-oriented. It fills in knowledge gaps, implements
conservation actions through dynamic partnerships, and .draws
together the major bird conservation plans already in existence for
waterbirds, shorebirds, waterfowl, and landbirds. NABCI members
developed BCRs to facilitate regional planning efforts. The primary
purposes of BCRs are to facilitate communication among the bird
conservation initiatives, facilitate a regional approach to bird
conservation, promote new, expanded, or restructured partnerships,
and identify overlapping or conflicting conservation priorities. BCRs are
ecologically distinct regions in North America with similar bird
National and Regional Conservation Plans Guiding the Project
Chapter 1. Introduction and the Purpose of and Need for Action 1-13
communities, habitats, and resource management issues. There are 67
BCRs across the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
Supawna Meadows NWR lies within BCR 30, which includes portions of
10 states and covers approximately 24.4 million acres. Members of the
ACJV have developed the Mid-Atlantic/Southern New England Bird
Conservation Region (BCR 30) Final Implementation Plan to guide
conservation priorities in the region (ACJV 2008). The purpose of this
plan is to bring the common goals of many other regional plans (e.g.,
State Wildlife Action Plans, Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan
for the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain [Physiographic Area 44], U.S.
Shorebird Conservation Plan) together into one format that can be used
by State agencies, non-governmental organizations, and other bird
conservation interests to implement bird conservation activities. The
plan identifies the bird species and habitats in greatest need of
conservation action in the region, activities thought to be most useful to
address those needs, and geographic areas believed to be the most
important places for work to occur. It identifies Supawna Meadows
NWR as part of a focus area (i.e., important bird area) important to a
broad range of shorebirds, waterfowl, and landbirds within BCR 30. We
used this plan to help develop objectives and strategies for goals 1 and
2, and to help create appendix A.
The Pea Patch Island
Heronry Region: Special
Area Management Plan
(1998)
Pea Patch Island is a small island located in the mid-channel of the
Delaware River near its entrance into Delaware Bay. It is a low,
marshy island currently owned by the State of Delaware as Fort
Delaware State Park (see Map 1.2). Pea Patch Island is home to the
largest wading bird colony on the Atlantic Coast of the United States.
The Delaware River, wetlands, and uplands that surround the island
support the foraging habits of these birds. The birds nest on the island
from March to September and depend on the region’s natural resources
during this time. The Pea Patch Island Heronry Region Special Area
Management Plan (SAMP) was published in July 1998 (Delaware
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 1998).
The purpose of the SAMP was to outline a broad, ecosystem based
approach to protecting and improving the resources that support the
Pea Patch Island Heronry, to build knowledge about the heronry, and to
ensure the commitments necessary for its long-term protection. The
development of the SAMP was a consensus-based effort involving
representatives from Federal, State and local government agencies,
nonprofit organizations and industry. The SAMP identifies several
issues that may positively or negatively affect the health of the heronry
population and surrounding area, and uses these issues to guide the
development and ranking of 28 management strategies. Birds breeding
on Pea Patch Island frequently use the refuge to rest and forage. We
used this plan to help develop our habitat goals, objectives, and
management strategies for the refuge.
National - State Agency
Herpetological
Conservation Report (Draft
2004)
The National State Agency Herpetological Conservation Report (NHCR)
is a summary report sponsored by Partners in Amphibian and Reptile
Conservation (PARC 2004). PARC was created in response to the
increasing national declines in amphibian and reptile populations.
PARC members come from State and Federal agencies, conservation
organizations, museums, the pet trade industry, nature centers, zoos,
the power industry, universities, herpetological organizations, research
National and Regional Conservation Plans Guiding the Project
1-14 Chapter 1. Introduction and the Purpose of and Need for Action
laboratories, forest industries and environmental consultants. Its five
geographic regions - Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Southwest and
Northwest - focus on national and regional herpetofaunal conservation
challenges. Regional working groups allow for region-specific
communication.
The NHCR provides a general overview of each State wildlife agency’s
support for reptile and amphibian conservation and research and
includes lists of the amphibian and reptile species of concern for each
state. Its purpose is to facilitate communication among State agencies
and partner organizations throughout the PARC network to identify
and address regional and national priorities for reptiles and
amphibians. PARC intends to expand the scope of the NHCR to include
other states, provinces, and territories. It would also include other State
agencies that are supporting conservation and research on amphibians
and reptiles, such as transportation departments, park departments,
and forest agencies. We used the latest draft NHCR plan in developing
objectives and strategies for goals 1 through 3, and in developing
appendix A.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Fisheries Program
Northeast Region
Strategic Plan (2009)
The Service's Fisheries Program maintains healthy populations of
coastal and anadromous fish, fish species that cross state or national
boundaries, and endangered aquatic animals and their habitats. 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” (USFWS 2002a). The
document includes goals, objectives, and action items on a national
programmatic scale.
The original Northeast Region Strategic Plan (USFWS 2004c) is an
extension of the Service’s Fisheries Program Strategic Vision document
(USFWS 2002a), describing more specifically how the Region will fulfill
the goals and objectives identified in the Vision over five years (2004-
2008). This plan, developed in cooperation with over 40 partners and
stakeholders, addresses the decline of fish populations and other
aquatic resources, and the economic impact of those declines. The plan
is implemented with partners through annual project work plans.
Recently, the Service updated the plan (USFWS 2009b) to address
2009-2013. The updated plan uses a more transparent process to show
partners and other members of the public how we arrived at various
priorities. We have consulted with the Regional Fisheries Program staff
and used this plan in developing aquatic objectives and strategies under
goals 1 and 2, and in creating appendix A.
Regional Wetlands
Concept Plan - Emergency
Wetlands Resources Act
(USFWS 1990)
In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act to
promote the conservation of our nation's wetlands. The Act directs the
Department of the Interior to develop a National Wetlands Priority
Conservation Plan identifying the location and types of wetlands that
should receive priority attention for acquisition by Federal and State
agencies.
National and Regional Conservation Plans Guiding the Project
Chapter 1. Introduction and the Purpose of and Need for Action 1-15
In 1990, the Northeast Region completed a Regional Wetlands Concept
Plan to provide more specific information about wetlands resources in
the Northeast. It identifies nearly 850 wetland sites that warrant
consideration for acquisition to conserve wetland values in our region.
The plan was not intended to be an exhaustive list of priority wetlands
in the region. A portion of one of these sites, Mannington Meadow, is
included within the refuge boundary. We used this plan to help guide
management strategies for this and other wetlands within the refuge.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Indiana Bat Draft
Recovery Plan: First
Revision (2007)
In 1967, the Federal government listed the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis)
as endangered because of declines in their numbers documented at
seven major hibernacula in the Midwest. At the time of their listing,
Indiana bats numbered around 883,300. Surveys in 2005 numbered the
population at 458,332. Although population numbers are down, surveys
in most States’ hibernation sites indicated that populations increased or
at least remained stable in 2004 and 2005.
In 2006, the first evidence of a new illness affecting cave-dwelling bats
was detected (USFWS 2009c). While the causative agent of this illness
is still in question, it is called white-nose syndrome because affected
bats usually have a white fungus on their muzzles and other parts of
their bodies. Bats with white-nose syndrome frequently lack adequate
body fat to survive until spring and exhibit uncharacteristic behavior
such as flying during the day or flying when they would normally be
hibernating. Smaller bats, such as Indiana bats, appear to be more
susceptible to white-nose syndrome than larger bats.
Since the initial detection in 2006, white-nose syndrome has been
detected from Vermont to Virginia. In some affected hibernacula, 90 to
100 percent of the bats are dying. Preliminary estimates of the
Northeast Region’s Indiana bat population indicate that the population
has declined approximately 30 percent between 2007 and 2009 (USFWS
2009c).
Long-term effects of this illness on bat species are unknown, but it is
possible that entire bat species, including the Indiana bat, may become
extinct. Supawna Meadows NWR is home to a maternity colony of about
1,500 bats that use a barn on the refuge. We conducted surveys of the
maternity colony in 2004, 2007, and 2008. Using mist nets and harp
traps, approximately 250 bats were captured and identified. The
majority of bats were identified as little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus)
and a small number were identified as big brown bats (Eptesicus
fuscus). To date, we have not confirmed that any of the bats from the
Supawna Meadows NWR site have white-nose syndrome and the colony
isn't showing signs observed at maternity colonies in affected areas.
Signs of white-nose syndrome observed at other maternity colonies
include malformed pups, large numbers of dead pups, and little to no
reproduction (A. Scherer, Senior Endangered Species Biologist, New
Jersey Field Office, USFWS, personal communication).
While no Indiana bats have been documented at the Supawna Meadows
NWR, the refuge’s forested and upland habitats have a potential for
supporting wintering, foraging, and roosting habitats for Indiana bats.
The Service would implement recovery plan tasks (USFWS 2007a) for
National and Regional Conservation Plans Guiding the Project
1-16 Chapter 1. Introduction and the Purpose of and Need for Action
this species as appropriate if the Indiana bat was documented within
the refuge boundary.
National Marine Fisheries
Service Final Recovery
Plan for the Shortnose
Sturgeon (1998)
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) were listed as endangered
in 1967 under the Endangered Species Preservation Act (32 FR 4001).
The original listing did not specify reasons for the decline, but
subsequent documents cite water pollution and overfishing, including
bycatch in the shad fishery, as principle reasons for the species’ decline
(NMFS 1998). The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) currently
recognizes 19 distinct population segments, including one population in
the Delaware River (NMFS 1998). While the Delaware River is not
included within the refuge boundary, the river and several tributaries
form part of the refuge’s border. Therefore, activities occurring on the
refuge could have minimal effects on the shortnose sturgeon habitat.
We used this plan to help guide management strategies for refuge
habitat to ensure potential effects on adjacent sturgeon habitat are
neutral or wholly beneficial.
The Landscape Project,
New Jersey Endangered
and Nongame Species
Program, New Jersey
Department of
Environmental Protection
(2002)
In 1994, the New Jersey Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife’s
Endangered and Nongame Species Program (ENSP) adopted a
landscape level approach to rare species protection. The goal is to
protect New Jersey’s biological diversity by maintaining and enhancing
rare wildlife populations within healthy, functioning ecosystems. Five
landscape regions have been identified. Supawna Meadows NWR lies
within the Piedmont Plains Region. Using an extensive database that
combines rare species location information with land cover data, the
ENSP has identified and mapped areas of critical habitat for rare
species (i.e., State and Federal-listed threatened or endangered species)
within each landscape region. Critical areas are ranked by priority. A
geographic information system (GIS) database provides baseline
information to conservation partners for help in prioritizing habitat
protection, open space acquisition, and land management planning.
This information was utilized in our land protection planning.
Comprehensive
Conservation and
Management Plan for the
Delaware Estuary (1996)
The Delaware Estuary is faced with continuing threats from toxic
substances, habitat loss and fragmentation, and human development.
To help address these threats, the Delaware Estuary Program worked
with many partners to develop the Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP) for the Delaware Estuary (Delaware
Estuary Program 1996). The CCMP is a comprehensive document
describing the existing conditions of the Delaware Estuary and
providing seven action plans (land management, water use
management, habitat and living resources, toxics, education and
involvement, and monitoring) and an implementation plan. While the
Delaware Estuary Program has since merged with the Partnership for
the Delaware Estuary, this reorganized entity is still active and is now
responsible for addressing the various actions identified in the CCMP.
We used this plan as a reference in developing habitat management
and land protection planning objectives.
Refuge Purposes and
Land Acquisition
History
Refuges can be established by Congress through special legislation, by
the President through Executive Order, or administratively by the
Secretary of the Interior (delegated to the Director of the Service) who is
authorized by Congress through legislation. Refuge System lands may
Refuge Purposes and Land Acquisition History
Chapter 1. Introduction and the Purpose of and Need for Action 1-17
Supawna Meadows NWR
Establishing Legislation
be acquired under a variety of legislative and administrative
authorities.
In 1971, the Service purchased the first 653 acres that became the
Supawna Meadows NWR from the Philadelphia Conservationists (now
known as the Natural Lands Trust). The land was called the Goose
Pond addition to the Killcohook Migratory Bird Refuge. On April 10,
1974, the Service renamed the lands as the Supawna Meadows
National Wildlife Refuge and officially separated this area from
Killcohook Migratory Bird Refuge. Killcohook Migratory Bird Refuge
was established by Executive Order 6582 on February 3, 1934.
Historically, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) used the area to
deposit soil dredged from the Delaware River. On October 30, 1998, the
Service’s jurisdiction over Killcohook Migratory Bird Refuge was
revoked. Currently, this area is called the Killcohook Coordination
Area, and is used by ACE to deposit dredged soil. The Service has
acquired interests in over 2,300 additional acres for this refuge since
1971.
Supawna Meadows NWR
Purposes
Refuge purposes are specified in or derived from the laws,
proclamations, executive orders, agreements, public land orders,
donation documents, or administrative memoranda that establish,
authorize, or expand a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit.
The Supawna Meadows NWR was established for the following
purposes:
 as property with particular value in carrying out the national
migratory bird management program (The Transfer of Certain Real
Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act, as amended [16
U.S.C. §667b-667d; 62 Stat. 240]);
 for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management
purpose, for migratory birds (The Migratory Bird Conservation Act
[16 U.S.C. §715D]); and,
 as a refuge suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented
recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3)
the conservation of endangered species or threatened species (Refuge
Recreation Act, as amended [16 U.S.C. 460k-1]).
Refuge Operational Plans
("Step-Down" Plans)
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 602, Chapter 4
(Refuge Planning Policy), identifies more than 25 step-down
management plans that generally are required on refuges. Those plans
provide the details necessary to “step-down” general goals and
objectives to specific strategies and implementation schedules. Some
require annual revisions; others are revised on a 5- to 10-year schedule.
Some require additional NEPA analysis, public involvement, and
compatibility determinations before they can be implemented.
The following step-down plans are completed and up-to-date:
 Hunt Plan (reviewed annually)
 Fishing Plan (reviewed annually)
 Safety Plan
 Continuity of Operations Plan
Refuge Purposes and Land Acquisition History
1-18 Chapter 1. Introduction and the Purpose of and Need for Action
 Fire Management Plan
The following step-down plans need to be completed for the refuge:
 Habitat Management Plan (the highest priority plan to complete)
 Water Management Plan (to be incorporated into Habitat
Management Plan)
 Law Enforcement Plan
 Integrated Pest Management Plan (to be incorporated into Habitat
Management Plan)
 Facilities Plan
 Sign Plan
 Visitor Services Plan
Refuge Vision Statement Our team developed the following vision statement to provide a guiding
philosophy and sense of purpose for our planning effort:
Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge will continue to
provide essential tidal marsh habitat to feed and shelter
migrating waterfowl and to feed nearby colonial-nesting
wading birds, thereby maintaining its significant role as part
of the Delaware Bayshore system of wetlands and upland
buffers that is one of the most important migratory bird
habitats in the nation.
The refuge will continue to serve as an oasis of native biotic
communities within sight of the burgeoning industrial,
transportation, and residential developments of the lower
Delaware River Basin and South Jersey by providing an array
of wetland and upland habitats that support a diverse
community of breeding and migrating birds, native mammals,
and other species.
Refuge visitors will be able to hunt and fish, observe and
photograph wildlife, and learn of the ecological importance
and diversity of wildlife at Supawna Meadows NWR. They will
understand the refuge as part of a larger network of protected
lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System, set aside
specifically for wildlife.
Refuge Goals Our planning team developed the following goals for the refuge after a
review of legal and policy guidelines, the Service mission, regional
plans, refuge purposes, our vision for the refuge, and public comments.
All of these goals fully conform with and support national and regional
mandates and policies.
Goal 1: Protect, enhance and restore biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of tidally-influenced habitats to support
native wildlife and plant communities including species of
conservation concern.
Goal 2: Protect, enhance, and restore biological integrity, diversity and
environmental health of upland habitats to support native
Refuge Purposes and Land Acquisition History
Chapter 1. Introduction and the Purpose of and Need for Action 1-19
wildlife and plant communities with emphasis on migrating and
wintering birds and other species of concern.
Goal 3: Protect, enhance, and restore biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of non-tidal wetland habitats to support
native wildlife and plant communities with emphasis on
breeding, migrating and overwintering birds and other species
of conservation concern.
Goal 4: Provide opportunities for compatible high-quality, wildlife-dependent
public uses.
Goal 5: Protect cultural resources on the refuge.
Goal 6: Enhance refuge management through partnerships, friends,
volunteers, and community outreach.
The Comprehensive
Conservation
Planning Process
Service policy establishes an eight-step planning process that also
facilitates our compliance with NEPA (Figure 1.1. 2). Our planning
policy and CCP training course materials describe those steps in detail.
We followed that process in developing this draft CCP/EA.
Figure 1.1 The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
2 “The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process” (http://policy.fws.gov/602fw3.html)
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
1-20 Chapter 1. Introduction and the Purpose of and Need for Action
Since 1974, we have focused on conserving and managing Supawna
Meadows NWR to help sustain migrating waterfowl, wading birds, and
other trust species, and to facilitate wildlife-dependent public uses.
We began the CCP process for the refuge in May 2007 with a kick-off
meeting. We discussed the current status of the refuge, important
issues to be addressed in the CCP, and the status and sources of data
for the analysis. We defined a core team to include refuge managers and
staff from Cape May NWR, regional planners, and a New Jersey
Division of Fish and Wildlife representative.
We held an internal scoping meeting, site visit, and field review in July
2007 to identify issues, concerns, management ideas, and data sources
for the development of the CCP and analysis of management strategies.
We published and distributed our first newsletter in August of 2007.
On September 7, 2007, we held two public scoping meetings at the
Pennsville Public Library to solicit comments from the community and
other interested parties on the scope of the CCP and the issues and
impacts that should be evaluated in the draft CCP/EA.
We published an official notice in the Federal Register on September
24, 2007 that announced we were preparing a draft CCP/EA.
On April 15, 2008, we held a biological workshop with representatives
of the Service, the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, and the
Delaware Division of Parks to discuss management objectives for the
array of refuge habitats.
On May 6, 2008, we held a public use objectives meeting that addressed
hunting, access to Finns Point Rear Range Light, and a variety of other
public use opportunities, issues, and concerns.
After a review meeting in June 2008 with senior staff at the Service’s
Northeast Regional headquarters, we revised the biological and public
use objectives.
We distributed a second newsletter in July 2008.
We will complete “Step E: Prepare Draft Plan and NEPA Document” by
publishing our Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Federal Register
announcing the release of this draft CCP/EA and by distributing this
document for public review. During a 30-day period of public review, we
will hold at least one public meeting to obtain comments. We also
expect to receive comments by regular mail, electronic mail, or at the
refuge. After the comment period expires, we will review and
summarize all of the comments we have received and develop our
responses. We will present them in an appendix to the final CCP.
Once we have prepared the final CCP, we will submit it to the Regional
Director for review and approval to determine if a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate, and whether the final CCP
meets agency compliance requirements, achieves refuge purposes, and
helps fulfill the mission of the Refuge System. With an affirmative
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
Chapter 1. Introduction and the Purpose of and Need for Action 1-21
FONSI and other positive findings, the Regional Director can approve
the final CCP. Upon approval, we will publish another Federal Register
NOA to announce the availability of the final plan. That will complete
“Step F: Prepare and Adopt a Final Plan.” “Step G: Implement Plan,
Monitor and Evaluate” will then begin.
We will modify the final CCP as warranted following the procedures in
Service policy (602 FW 1, 3, and 4) and NEPA requirements as part of
“Step H: Review and Revise Plan.” Minor revisions that meet the
criteria for categorical exclusions (550 FW 3.3C) will require only an
Environmental Action Memorandum. We must fully revise CCPs every
15 years.
Issues and
Opportunities
From public meeting and planning team discussions, we developed a
list of issues, concerns, opportunities, and other items requiring a
management decision. We placed them in two categories: key issues and
issues outside the scope of the EA.
Key issues - Key issues are those the Service has the jurisdiction and
authority to resolve. The key issues, together with refuge goals, form
the basis for developing and comparing the different management
alternatives we analyze in chapter 3. The varying alternatives were
generated by the wide-ranging opinions on how to address key issues
and conform with the goals and objectives. We describe them in detail
below.
Issues and concerns outside the scope of this analysis - These topics fall
outside the jurisdiction and authority of the Service or were deemed
impractical. We discuss them after “Key Issues,” below, but this plan
does not address them further.
Key Issues We derived the following key issues from public and partner meetings
and further team discussions. How they are addressed and how well
they support refuge goals primarily distinguishes the three
management alternatives in chapter 3.
1. Which species should be a focus for management and how will the
refuge promote and enhance their habitats?
Congress entrusts the Service with protecting Federal-listed
endangered or threatened plant and animal species, anadromous and
inter-jurisdictional fish species, migratory birds, and certain marine
mammals, and mandates their treatment as management priorities
when they occur on a refuge. Appendix A identifies Federal trust
resources on the refuge, as well as other species of special concern.
Numerous species of concern, including those species listed by the New
Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife as endangered, threatened, or a
species of special concern, are potentially present in the vicinity of the
refuge. The shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) is present in
the adjacent Delaware River. Other Federal-listed threatened or
endangered species may enter the Delaware Bay and may occasionally
travel up the river as far as the refuge. No sea turtle nesting habitat is
present on the refuge; however, some turtles including Atlantic
hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), Atlantic loggerhead (Caretta
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
1-22 Chapter 1. Introduction and the Purpose of and Need for Action
caretta caretta), Atlantic ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), and Atlantic
leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) may enter the Delaware Bay.
Whales occasionally enter the Delaware Bay and one individual is
known to have strayed as far north as Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
(Spotila et al. 2007). Sensitive joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica), a
Federal-listed threatened species, was found on the muddy tidal banks
of the Delaware River on August 8, 1881. No plants were found during a
survey conducted on September 30, 1992. Although these Federal-listed
species may be found close to the refuge, their presence is largely
limited to the Delaware River and Delaware Bay where the Service
does not have jurisdiction. Therefore, the Service is limited in its ability
to support recovery objectives for these species.
Migratory birds are also a Federal trust resource. The challenge with
migratory bird management lies in determining how each refuge can
contribute significantly to the conservation of migratory bird species of
concern. One important question we address is, “Which migratory bird
species and associated habitat types should be a priority for
management on these refuges?” Management emphasis on a certain
species or species group may preclude management for other migratory
bird species of concern. On the refuge, for example, managing for
grassland-dependent bird nesting habitat would likely reduce the
habitat potential for interior forest nesting birds. Migratory bird species
associated with both habitat types are in decline throughout PIF Area
44.
This CCP identifies the migratory bird species of management
emphasis, associated management and land protection, and their
impacts on other species of concern. Refuge goals 1-3 address our
response to this issue.
2. How will the refuge manage invasive, exotic, and overabundant
species?
Invasive plant species such as phragmites (Phragmites australis),
Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), mile-a-minute vine (Polygonum perfoliatum),
autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora),
and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) threaten refuge habitats by
displacing native plant and animal species, degrading wetlands and
other natural communities, and reducing natural diversity and wildlife
habitat values. They out-compete native species by dominating light,
water, and nutrient resources, and are particularly menacing when
they affect native habitats, as when phragmites invades tidal marsh
habitat.
Invasives are able to establish themselves easily, reproduce prolifically,
and disperse readily, which makes eradicating them difficult. Once they
have become established, getting rid of them is expensive and labor
intensive. Many cause measurable economic impacts, especially in
agricultural fields. Preventing new invasions is extremely important for
maintaining biological diversity and native plant populations. The
control of affected areas will require extensive partnerships with
adjacent landowners, State, and local governments.
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
Chapter 1. Introduction and the Purpose of and Need for Action 1-23
Invasive animal species, such as mute swans (Cygnus olor) and feral
cats, also threaten refuge habitats by displacing, harming, or
devastating native plant and animal species, degrading wetlands and
other natural communities, and reducing natural diversity and wildlife
habitat values. The threats of invasive animal and plant species are
very similar.
We suspect that several wildlife species on the refuge are adversely
affecting natural biological diversity. Native species (e.g., deer, resident
Canada geese, and snow geese) and small furbearing mammals (e.g.,
beavers, raccoons, woodchucks, and muskrats) can become problems
when their populations exceed the range of natural fluctuation and the
ability of their habitat to support them. In particular, issues surface
when these animals directly affect trust species or degrade natural
communities. Small mammalian predators have been known to destroy
neotropical migratory bird nests. Although we expect some predation in
a natural system, concerns arise when it prevents our meeting
conservation objectives.
There can be adverse ecological and economical impacts when deer,
Canada geese, or snow geese forage excessively on fields or marsh
vegetation, or when beaver and woodchuck affect water quality, degrade
water control structures or impoundment dikes, or cause flooding where
it is not desirable. As adjacent lands are developed for residential or
commercial use, the concentrations of deer can rise on less developed
lands, like the refuge. An overabundance of deer can produce long-term
negative effects such as potential disease epizootics (Demarais et al.
2000), browsing pressure on landscapes, vegetation, and crops, and
severe habitat degradation (Cypher and Cypher 1988). When deer
populations become excessive, they can also compromise human health
and safety. An increase in vehicle-deer collisions or the incidence of
Lyme disease raises community concerns. The measures for controlling
each species are potentially controversial, and may include lethal
removal, visual and acoustic deterrents, and destroying nesting or den
sites. Our response to this issue is addressed in refuge goals 1-4.
3. How will the refuge manage impoundments and forested wetlands?
Impoundments are confined bodies of water. The refuge has five
impoundments with water control structures (WCS) totaling
approximately 84 acres and five impoundments without WCSs totaling
approximately 4 acres. Natural changes in water levels can occur from
rainfall and natural springs. Water levels can be altered in
impoundments with WCSs by inserting or removing boards that either
release water or allow tidal water to flow into the impoundments.
Currently, the water level is managed in three of the five
impoundments with water control structures. Changes in water levels
during specific times of the year provide habitat and food for an array of
wildlife including shorebirds, wading birds, and waterfowl. Shorebirds
benefit from impoundments when water levels are lowered and
mudflats are exposed providing foraging habitat. Wading birds and
waterfowl benefit when water levels are higher providing food such as
aquatic vegetation, invertebrates, and fish.
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
1-24 Chapter 1. Introduction and the Purpose of and Need for Action
The refuge has approximately 186 acres of forested wetland habitat. A
WCS is located along Xmas Tree Lane in forested wetland habitat.
Managing the water levels here would provide additional forested
wetland habitat (i.e., a green-tree reservoir). This area represents an
excellent example of mature forest quality with great size class
diversity. Forested wetlands provide habitat for wood duck nesting and
brood rearing, roosting eastern screech owls, and breeding reptiles and
amphibians.
Managing areas with WCSs could benefit a variety of species by
changing water levels at various times of year. The habitats could also
be restored by removing WCSs and dikes to allow the habitat to revert
to historic conditions, such as in the Tract 11 impoundment where the
habitat surrounding the dike is tidal marsh, or by plugging ditches and
restoring the natural hydrology to the forested wetland habitat. The
Tract 11D Lighthouse Road impoundment could be managed to benefit
wading birds, waterfowl. The Xmas Tree Lane impoundment could be
used to provide fishing opportunities to the public. Our responses to
these issues are addressed in refuge goals 3 and 4.
4. How will the refuge provide opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent
public uses, realizing that those uses occasionally conflict?
The Refuge System Improvement Act does not establish a hierarchy
among the six wildlife-dependent priority public uses of refuges, nor
does it establish any clear process for determining such a hierarchy.
Unfortunately, those uses sometimes conflict with each other in time,
space, or the allocation of resources. For example, environmental
education and interpretation programs could conflict with hunting if
they occur in an area open to hunting at the same time. In the
Northeast Region, we have established “areas of emphasis” to identify
where each refuge may make its greatest contribution to the six priority
public uses. Supawna Meadows NWR’s areas of emphasis are the same
as Cape May NWR’s areas of emphasis - interpretation and wildlife
observation and photography.
Some people express concerns when refuge resources are
disproportionately allocated toward one use and opportunities for other
uses suffer. An additional challenge for the refuge manager is
determining the carrying capacity of the refuge to support these uses
while still managing to provide a quality experience. Our responses to
this refuge issue are addressed in refuge goal 5.
Traditional wildlife-dependent uses of the refuge include fishing and
hunting of waterfowl and white-tailed deer. Until 2007, the refuge
provided opportunities for limited shotgun, muzzleloader, and bow
hunting for white-tailed deer. After the completion of an approved
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI), deer hunting opportunities were changed to include only bow
hunting.
5. How will the refuge manage compatible non-priority public uses on
the refuge?
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
Chapter 1. Introduction and the Purpose of and Need for Action 1-25
Service policy provides that a use might be inappropriate based on
compliance with other laws and policy, the availability of resources to
manage the uses, possible conflicts with other uses, safety concerns, or
other administrative factors. Inappropriate uses may, nonetheless, be
compatible, in the sense that it may not materially interfere with the
purposes of the refuge or the Refuge System’s mission. Other uses, such
as historic uses, might be appropriate and compatible, but may not be
priority public uses or wildlife-dependent uses.
During the period 1989 through 2004, we provided public access to the
Finns Point Rear Range Light ten weekends (Saturday and Sunday)
during the summer months. With the decline in on-site personnel and
safety concerns, this activity is currently limited to allowing access only
during the New Jersey Lighthouse Challenge, directly sponsored by the
Friends of Supawna Meadows and the New Jersey Lighthouse Society.
The challenge is held annually one weekend in October.
Visitors have requested permission to participate in a variety of non-priority
public uses at Supawna Meadows NWR. A few of these non-priority
public uses (e.g., scientific research) have been considered
compatible. All other non-priority public uses (for example, horseback
riding, bicycling, jogging, physical geocaching, group gatherings not
related to wildlife-dependent recreation, and picnicking) have been
determined to be inappropriate and incompatible with the refuge’s
purposes (see appendix B for Findings of Appropriateness and
Compatibility Determinations).
6. How will the refuge cultivate an informed and educated public to
support the mission of the Service and the purposes for which the
refuge was established?
Community involvement in support of our Refuge System mission is
both very important and very rewarding. Outreach ties the refuge to
local communities, inspiring an interest in the Refuge System and in
natural resource conservation and stewardship. It is important that
people understand what we are doing, why we are doing it, and how we
can work together to improve our communities. Our challenge lies in
determining how best to reach out, raise the visibility of the refuge in
the local community, and cultivate a relationship. Some people advocate
increasing the number of refuge programs open to the public while
others promote refuge staff involvement in established community
events, government committees, and conservation organizations. Refuge
goal 6 addresses our responses to this issue.
7. What additional lands will the refuge protect or acquire?
New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the nation. One of
the consequences of that distinction is the extreme pressure it places on
natural resources. Previously undeveloped lands are being developed
rapidly. During our public scoping process, many individuals
encouraged us to expand the refuge for a variety of reasons and many
expressed concern over the rapid rate of development. Some spoke of
the direct benefits, even the necessity, of maintaining land in its
natural state, which the refuge exemplifies.
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
1-26 Chapter 1. Introduction and the Purpose of and Need for Action
The refuge’s current approved acquisition boundary encompasses 4,527
acres, of which the Service currently owns 3,016 acres in fee title lands.
An additional 254 acres is managed under a conservation agreement.
We will continue to maintain an active land acquisition program and
work with willing sellers to acquire properties within the existing
acquisition boundary. The primary funding source for land acquisition
comes from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which
Congress approves annually. In past years the availability of LWCF
funding for Supawna Meadows NWR has been limited. As funds become
available, the primary acquisition emphasis will be on those properties
within the acquisition boundary.
8. How will the refuge obtain the staffing and funding necessary to
complete priority projects?
Between 1998 and 2004, Supawna Meadows NWR was staffed with a
refuge manager, a biologist, a maintenance worker with collateral law
enforcement responsibilities, and a part time administrative assistant.
In March 2004, the refuge was administratively complexed with Cape
May NWR. In response to funding shortfalls, the 2006 Regional Work
Force Planning Report identified Supawna Meadows NWR as an
unstaffed satellite refuge complexed to the Cape May NWR. Therefore,
the refuge currently has no on-site staff. Approximately 20 percent of
the Cape May NWR staff’s time is spent annually providing
management, maintenance and law enforcement support to Supawna
Meadows NWR.
As the CCP was developed, we had to consider what could be
accomplished in the next 15 years without on-site staff. If we are able to
hire on-site staff, what positions would we want to fill and what
additional management activities would they be able to support?
9. How will we preserve, protect and interpret cultural and historic
resources on refuge lands?
The Finns Point Rear Range Light (FPRRL) was listed in the National
Register of Historic Places on August 30, 1978. It is a well-known
historic feature located on refuge land. The catwalk was open to the
public for viewing in the recent past, but engineering inspection has
shown it to pose a potential safety hazard that would require
substantial funding to correct. Although it is not directly related to the
goals of refuge management, the Service recognizes its responsibility to
maintain the FPRRL in accordance with the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1974. The New Jersey Lighthouse Society and
others expressed interest in having the refuge provide opportunities for
public access to the lighthouse during the annual Statewide lighthouse
challenge. Questions were raised as to how best to meet the needed
protection of the lighthouse and provide public access. Would this be
more appropriately accomplished through a property transfer
agreement with the State Division of Parks and Forestry, or through
cooperative agreements with non-government agencies, such as the
New Jersey Lighthouse Society, and/or the Friends of Supawna
Meadows NWR?
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
Chapter 1. Introduction and the Purpose of and Need for Action 1-27
We also recognize the potential of the lighthouse to be a focal point for
enhancing the public’s knowledge and understanding of the
environmental importance that the refuge provides to a variety of
wildlife species and habitats, as well as interpreting the historic value
of the lighthouse. Efforts in this regard would be subject to maintaining
the historic integrity of the lighthouse.
There are two other sites on the refuge that generate cultural and
historic interest. The first of these sites is a small family cemetery
dating back to the late 1800s, located just off County Route 197 along
the entrance road to the location of the old refuge office. The cemetery
has not been assessed for eligibility as a site for the National Register of
Historic Places; however, we do recognize the importance of
maintaining this site suitable for visitor appreciation.
The second of these sites is the previous headquarters, the old
farmhouse of the Samuel Urion Farmstead, which has been referred to
as the Urion-Yerkes homestead. We will consult with the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) about disposition of this building and will
comply with any applicable requirements including mitigation if
needed. The farmhouse has fallen into extensive disrepair beyond
reasonable restoration value over the years; therefore, demolition is the
anticipated outcome.
This draft CCP/EA will be sent to the New Jersey SHPO for review of
National Historic Act Section 106 compliance, and we will also continue
to do Section 106 compliance for all individual projects as needed.
Issues Outside the Scope
of This CCP
1. Water Quality – Proposal to dredge the Delaware River
During the public scoping process, some members of the public
expressed concerns about water quality in the Delaware and Salem
rivers and the potential harmful effects a proposed dredging operation
within the Delaware River could have on Supawna Meadows NWR. The
project has been proposed for many years by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. The proposal to increase the depth of the river from 40 feet
to 45 feet is currently involved in various lawsuits from environmental
organizations and the States of Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New
Jersey. At this point in time, the outcome of the litigation and final
dredging operation plan are unclear and cannot be addressed in this
CCP. Furthermore, completion of this project is not within the Service’s
jurisdiction.
2. Will the refuge expand upland hunting opportunities?
During a scoping meeting with New Jersey Division of Fish and
Wildlife, it was recommended that we look into expanding hunting
opportunities on the refuge, in particular to include wild turkey,
American woodcock, eastern gray squirrel, northern bobwhite, ruffed
grouse, and rabbit. Although we considered this recommendation, we
have eliminated this from detailed evaluation because of the small size
of the huntable area within the refuge and the potential conflicts with
other public uses.
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
1-28 Chapter 1. Introduction and the Purpose of and Need for Action
Plan Amendment and
Revision
Periodic review of the CCP will be required to ensure that objectives are
being met and management actions are being implemented. Ongoing
monitoring and evaluation will be an important part of this process.
Monitoring results or new information may indicate the need to change
our strategies. At a minimum, CCPs will be fully revised every 15 years.
We will modify the CCP documents and associated management
activities as needed and we will follow the procedures outlined in
Service policy, the Refuge Improvement Act, and NEPA requirements.
Chapter 2
Affected Environment
Introduction
Regional Setting
Socioeconomic Setting
Refuge Administration
Biological Resources
Wildlife Dependent Public Use
Cultural Resources

View from Boardwalk at Supawna Meadows NWR
Beth Goldstein/USFWS
Physical Environment
Chapter 2. Affected Environment 2-1
Introduction This chapter describes in detail the physical, cultural, socioeconomic,
biological, and administrative environments of the Supawna Meadows
NWR and its resources directly related to our goals and key issues. It
also provides the context for evaluating our management alternatives in
chapter 3, “Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred
Alternative.
Physical Environment Elements of the physical environment considered include regional
setting, air quality, water quality, soil types, and regional conservation
lands.
Regional Setting According to The Nature Conservancy, Supawna Meadows NWR is
located on the southwestern tidal shore of the Delaware River estuary
in Salem County, New Jersey (Anderson et al. 2006). It is on the
western edge of the New Jersey Inner Coastal Plain (232Ac) in the
North Atlantic Coast Ecoregion (Map 2.1). The New Jersey Wildlife
Action Plan (NJDFW 2008a) shows the refuge located at the
southwestern-most tip of New Jersey’s Southern Piedmont Plains
conservation zone within the Piedmont Plains Landscape (Map 2.2).
The refuge is approximately ten miles south of Wilmington, Delaware
and 35 miles south of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The refuge's
acquisition boundary encompasses approximately 4,527 acres. The
refuge has acquired approximately 3,016 acres within the approved
boundary.
The refuge has a flat terrain typical of Delaware Estuary tidal areas.
Elevations on the refuge range from zero to ten feet above mean sea
level (msl) USFWS 2005a); however, in Pennsville, adjacent to the
refuge, the elevation is 19 feet above msl.
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), the tidal amplitude on the Delaware River estuary in the
vicinity of the refuge, as measured at a point near the refuge on the
Salem River, averages about five feet (5.32 feet at Sinnickson’s
Landing). The area’s climate can best be described as moderate, under a
coastal influence (Delaware River/Bay). Days below zero degrees
Fahrenheit (F) and above 100 degrees F are rare. The average frost-free
period runs from late April to early October. Annual precipitation
averages 41 inches per year and snowfall averages about 21 inches per
year. Prevailing winds are from the northwest during the winter and
from the southwest during the summer.
Lands in the vicinity of the refuge have been in cultivation since the
first permanent settlement was established in Salem County by John
Fenwick in 1675 and farming is still the predominant land use
surrounding the refuge. In the past, dikes were developed to block off
the tides so wetlands could be farmed. These dikes required
considerable maintenance. Storms and vandalism eventually breached
all the dikes around the refuge; however, they remain to some degree
between the Delaware River and the refuge. The last efforts by farmers
to dike what are now refuge marshes ended in the late 1930s. Other
traditional uses of the area include shad and sturgeon fishing, boat
building and repair, muskrat trapping, and waterfowl hunting. All
these activities, with the exception of sturgeon fishing, continue today.
Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Ecoregional Context Maps 2.1 and 2.2
2-2 Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Map 2.1. Ecoregion location of Supawna Meadows NWR in the New Jersey/Delaware Subregion.
Supawna
Meadows NWR
Map Source: The Nature Conservancy
(Anderson et al. 2006)
.
Map 2.2. Ecoregion location of Supawna Meadows NWR in the New Jersey Southern Piedmont Plains zone.
Supawna
Meadows
NWR
NJ Southern Piedmont Plains
Conservation Zone
Map Source: New Jersey Wildlife
Action Plan (NJDFW 2008)
Physical Environment
Chapter 2. Affected Environment 2-3
The land surrounding the refuge is primarily residential, commercial,
and agricultural. A Ganes Chemical Company facility, a shopping
center with a Wal-Mart store, and a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
facility are located on properties either immediately adjacent to the
refuge or just outside the refuge acquisition boundary. Agriculture is
declining, leaving some lands fallow while others are replaced by
development. Recent recreational use of lands adjacent to or near the
refuge has included waterfowl hunting, deer hunting, fishing, trapping,
wildlife observation, photography, horseback riding, and all terrain
vehicle (ATV)/off-road vehicle (ORV) use. All of these lands are in
private ownership; general public access to these lands is rare.
Recreational uses of waterways adjacent to or near the refuge include
canoeing and kayaking, use of motorized boats, and jet skiing.
Waterways adjacent to the refuge are under jurisdiction of New Jersey
State, which allows public access.
Fort Mott State Park and the Salem River Wildlife Management Area
are adjacent to the refuge acquisition boundary. Several other wildlife
management areas and private conservation lands are located within a
30-mile radius of the refuge. These lands provide some degree of
protection for wetlands, uplands, and deciduous forests.
Air Quality The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued the
following air quality standards (Table 2.1):
Table 2.1. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) air quality standards
Air pollutant Air Quality Standard*
Carbon monoxide 35 ppm (1-hour average), 9 ppm (8-hour
average)
Nitrogen dioxide 0.053 ppm (annual mean)
Ozone 0.12 ppm (1-hour average), 0.075 ppm (8-hour
average)
Sulfur dioxide 0.14 ppm (24-hour average), 0.030 ppm (annual
mean)
Airborne Particulates
(< 2.5 micrometers in diameter)
35 μg/m3 (24-hour average), 15.0 μg/m3 (annual
mean)
* ppm = parts per million
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Air
Monitoring maintains a network of 44 air monitoring sites throughout
the State for continuous monitoring of criteria air pollutants (AIRMON
2008). Air quality monitoring for Salem and Cumberland Counties is
conducted at a monitoring site in Millville, New Jersey approximately
30 miles southeast of Supawna Meadows NWR. In operation since 1983,
the Millville site is currently monitoring nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone
(O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter (PM) less than 2.5
micrometers in diameter (PM2.5). The Salem/Cumberland County area
is in non-attainment for ozone for the 8-hour standard but is in
attainment for the other criteria pollutants (EPA 2010). See table 2.2
for 2004 to 2008 ozone measurements at Millville.
Physical Environment
2-4 Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Table 2.2. Ozone measurements* closest to Supawna Meadows NWR from 2004 to
2008.
Ozone (in parts per million)
Year 2nd Max 1-hour 4th Max 8-hour
2004 0.092 0.083
2005 0.111 0.085
2006 0.103 0.083
2007 0.093 0.083
2008 0.089 0.079
* Measurements taken in Millville, Cumberland County, New Jersey.
Source: Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. US AirData webpage.
http://www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html Retrieved 9 July 2010.
Water Quality New Jersey water quality is monitored and managed within watershed
management areas. Watershed Management Area 17 (WMA 17)
includes the Cohansey, Maurice, and Salem rivers, and the Alloway,
Dividing, Manantico, Manusmuskin, Miles, Mill, Stow, and Whooping
creeks. This area includes portions of Atlantic, Cumberland, Gloucester,
and Salem Counties, over 39 municipalities, and encompasses 885
square miles. Land use in this watershed is about 40 percent cropland
with the rest being woodland, tidal/freshwater marsh, urban, and
pasture. Nonpoint sources of water pollution range from agricultural
activities such as tree harvesting, crop production, and animal pastures
to urban runoff from construction, septic systems, and urban surfaces.
The Salem River drains an area of 114 square miles and flows 32 miles,
from Upper Pittsgrove Township west to Deepwater, then south to the
Delaware River. The area lies within Salem County, the major
population center being the city of Salem. Much of the lower portions of
the river are tidal.
The Delaware River is the longest un-dammed river east of the
Mississippi, extending 330 miles from the confluence of its east and
west branches at Hancock, New York to the mouth of the Delaware Bay
where it meets the Atlantic Ocean (DRBC 2008). The river is fed by 216
tributaries, the largest of which are the Schuylkill and Lehigh rivers in
Pennsylvania. In all, the basin contains 13,539 square miles, draining
parts of Pennsylvania (6,422 square miles; 50.3 percent of the basin’s
total land area); New Jersey (2,969 square miles; 23.3 percent); New
York (2,362 square miles; 18.5 percent); and Delaware (1,004 square
miles; 7.9 percent). Included in the total area number is the 782 square-mile
Delaware Bay, which lies roughly half in New Jersey and half in
Delaware. Nearly 15 million people (approximately five percent of the
nation’s population) rely on the waters of the Delaware River Basin for
a multitude of uses, but the watershed drains only four-tenths of one
percent of the total continental U.S. land area. The Delaware River
Basin Commission’s (DRBC) recreational use standards for fecal
coliform and enterococcus bacteria apply in the tidal Delaware River
and Delaware Bay (DRBC 2009). August 2009 sampling at Pea Patch
Island and Reedy Island showed levels of enterococcus that exceeded
the standard of 35 colony forming units (cfu)/100 milliliters.
Physical Environment
Chapter 2. Affected Environment 2-5
Currently, fish consumption advisories exist for waters in all states
surrounding the Delaware Estuary and along the Delaware River
(Delaware Estuary 2008). Contaminants found in estuarine fish that
result in consumption advisories include polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), mercury, dioxins/furans, and chlorinated pesticides, including
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, better known as DDT. Given that fish
accumulate many contaminants in their fatty tissues, certain species
with higher oil contents can pose more human consumption risks than
others.
Soil Types The U.S. Department of Agriculture���s Natural Resource Conservation
Services mapped the soils within Salem County, New Jersey in 1996.
The major soil types found within the Refuge include Transquaking
mucky peat (65 percent of total acres), Mannington-Nanticoke complex
(10 percent), Mattapex silt loam (9 percent), and Othello, Falsington,
and Trussum soils (9 percent). The remaining soils on the refuge include
Mattapex silt loam (2 percent); Othello and Falsington soils (2 percent);
Sassafrass-Woodstown complex (2 percent), and Matapeake silt loam (1
percent). The major soil types are described below (USDA 1996, 2002):
Transquaking mucky peat, 0-1 percent slopes-This series consists of
very deep, very poorly drained soils formed in thick organic deposits.
They are very frequently flooded and occur on the brackish estuarine
marshes along tidally influenced rivers and creeks.
Mannington-Nanticoke complex, 0-1 percent slopes-This series consists
of mucky silt loam, formed in silty estuarine deposits over organic,
herbaceous material. These soils are non-acidic, fine silty, mixed soils
that are very poorly drained, frequently flooded, and occur in tidal flats.
Mattapex silt loam, 2-5 percent slopes-These are very deep, moderately
well drained soils formed from silty eolian deposits over coarser
fluviomarine deposits. They have moderate to rapid permeability and
are slightly acidic.
Othello, Falsington, and Trussum soils, 0-2 percent slopes-Both the
Falsington and Othello series are very deep, poorly drained soils formed
from silty eolian deposits over fluviomarine deposits. These occur on
upland flats and depressions.
Regional Conservation
Lands
There are several State, Federal, and locally-managed conservation
lands in the vicinity of Supawna Meadows NWR (Map 2.3).
Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge and Regional Conservation Lands Map 2.3
2-6 Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Socioeconomic Setting
Chapter 2. Affected Environment 2-7
Socioeconomic
Setting
Salem County
Located in the southwestern corner of New Jersey, Salem County is
bordered by Gloucester County to the north, Cumberland County to the
east and south, and the Delaware River to the west. While only 15
minutes from Wilmington, Delaware and 35 minutes to Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, Salem County remains by far the least populated county
in New Jersey. In spite of its close proximity to these urban and
regional centers and major roadways (such as the New Jersey Turnpike,
I-295, US Routes 40 and 130, and New Jersey State Highways 45 and
49), only 13 percent of the county’s land has been developed for
residential, commercial, or industrial use. The remaining 90 percent of
the county is farmland or tidal and freshwater wetlands, lakes, ponds,
and forests (NJDEP 2002b).
Salem County has, for the most part, maintained its traditional
industries and land use patterns. The original settlements were made
in the western end of the county where a network of rivers, streams,
and creeks feed into the Delaware River. Lumber and grain mills were
established among the major creeks as early industry was supported by
timber and agriculture. Agriculture has played an important role in
Salem County, both prior to European settlement, when it was
inhabited by the Lenni Lenape tribe, and through the 17th Century
arrival of the Swedes, Finns, and Quakers (Salem County Visitors
Center 2010).
Approximately 40 percent of the county contains productive farmland
today, largely concentrated in the rural central and eastern sections.
According to the Census of Agriculture, more than $70.5 million of
agricultural products were grown and raised on the 753 farms in Salem
County in 2002 (USDA 2002). Salem ranks first in the State for wheat,
barley, sweet corn, and potatoes, and second for milk production,
soybeans, asparagus, and corn harvested for grain. Representing more
than 10 percent of the State’s agricultural market, Salem County is
among the leaders for many other agricultural products as well (USDA
2002).
While agriculture is the mainstay of the eastern and central sections,
western Salem County remains home to industry, the county’s major
employer. For more than a century, E.I. DuPont de Nemours and
Company (DuPont) has formed the backbone of the chemical industry.
At its peak in 1917, DuPont reportedly employed 25,000 people. By the
1960s, DuPont Chambers Works was the largest chemical factory in the
world and DuPont employed 25 percent of Salem County households.
Since then, the manufacturing industry in the United States has
declined, as have the payrolls and outputs of DuPont and other
companies in Salem County. Global competition and environmental
regulations have led DuPont to relocate many of the site’s business
lines, cease operations of some altogether, and otherwise downsize its
operation at the Chambers Works facility. The corresponding reduction
in the industrial tax base, diminished employment opportunities, and
significant loss of disposable income in the community have
compromised the high quality of life associated with Salem County. By
2000, the county’s per capita income was $20,874, 23 percent lower then
the State’s per capita income of $27,006 (US Census 2000).
Socioeconomic Setting
2-8 Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Pennsville Township
Pennsville Township comprises 23.10 square miles located in the
Philadelphia-Camden Metropolitan area. Pennsville had a population
of 13,194, according to the 2000 Census. Estimated median household
income in 2007 was $57,310, which increased about 17 percent from
$47,494 in 2000. The town is predominately white, non-Hispanic (96.1
percent); hispanic is the second largest demographic, at 1.6 percent
(City Data 2009).
Contribution of the Refuge
to the Local Economy
Refuges provide many benefits to local economies. Property values and
associated property taxes often increase near open spaces, benefitting
local communities (Gies 2009). In addition, land in public ownership
requires little in the way of services from municipalities, yet provides
valuable recreation opportunities for local residents. Based on a 2006
report completed by the Service, over 34 million people visited refuges
for recreation that year (Carver and Caudill 2007). These visits
generated almost $1.7 billion in sales for regional economies, supporting
27,000 jobs and nearly $543 million in employment income. Refuge
recreation spending generated an additional $185.3 million in tax
revenue at the local, county, State, and Federal levels.
National wildlife refuges also contribute to local economies through
shared revenue payments. Under the provisions of the Refuge Revenue
Sharing Act (the Act of June 15, 1935, 16 U.S.C. 715s), the Service pays
an annual refuge revenue sharing payment to counties that contain
lands the Service administers. This payment often equals or exceeds the
amount that would have been received if the property remained in
private ownership. The exact amount of the annual payment depends
on Congressional appropriations, which in recent years have tended to
be less than the amount to fully fund the authorized level of payments.
All of the alternatives will continue those payments in accordance with
the law, commensurate with changes in the appraised market value of
refuge lands, and new appropriation levels dictated by Congress. Recent
Service revenue sharing payments for Supawna Meadows NWR are
presented in table 2.3.
Table 2.3. Supawna Meadows NWR Revenue Sharing Payments
Year Paid Amount Paid*
2000 $9,396.00
2001 $8,199.00
2002 $8,369.00
2003 $7,818.00
2004 $7,549.00
2005 $6,677.00
2006 $7,541.00
2007 $7,816.00
2008 $7,558.00
2009 $5,864.00
*Paid to Pennsville, Salem County
Refuge Administration
Chapter 2. Affected Environment 2-9
Refuge
Administration
The refuge’s approved acquisition boundary encompasses approximately
4,527 acres along the Delaware and Salem Rivers in Pennsville
Township, New Jersey. The refuge boundaries are defined by the
Delaware River, Salem River, New Jersey Route 49, West Supawna
Road, Fort Mott Road, and Lighthouse Road (see Map 1.3) in Chapter
1).
Supawna Meadows NWR
Land Acquisition History
Table 2.4 lists the land acquisition history for the refuge. The dates
from the 1800s represent when some of the original refuge lands were
first transferred from private ownership to the Federal government.
These properties were owned by different Federal agencies and were
eventually transferred to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Table 2.4. Land acquisition history for Supawna Meadows NWR
Acquisition Year Acres Price*
1837 18.89 0
1837 19.01 $1,500.00
1876 1.86 0
1935 1.86 0
1941 5.0 0
1973 562.4 0
1973 91.0 $300,000.000
1974 41.8 $15,700.00
1979 1002.3 0
1979 11.9 $154,044.00
1987 367.5 0
1987 114.4 $84,000.00
1990 81.06 0
1990 254.47 $415,000.00
1992 288.4 0
1992 32.8 $327,400.000
2006 121.0 0
2009 254.3** 0
Total 3,270.05 $1,297,644.00
*Zero price indicates land was donated
**All held in conservation easement
Operating Budget With the complexing of Supawna Meadows NWR to Cape May NWR in
2004 and the implementation of the Northeast Region’s Strategic
Workforce Plan in 2006, no specific operating budget has been allocated
for Supawna Meadows NWR. All operation and maintenance funding
for Supawna Meadows NWR is supported by Cape May NWR’s allocated
annual budget.
Supawna Meadows NWR
Staffing
The staff at Supawna Meadows NWR once consisted of a wildlife
biologist, a maintenance worker (with collateral law enforcement
duties), and an administrative support assistant. When the Northeast
Region’s Strategic Workforce Plan was implemented in 2006, the refuge
was deemed an unstaffed satellite of Cape May NWR. The plan
eliminated the wildlife biologist and administrative support assistant,
and, the maintenance worker position was relocated to Cape May NWR.
Refuge Administration
2-10 Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Supawna Meadows NWR currently has no on-site staff. Cape May NWR
currently has six full-time staff. Annually, about 20 percent of each full-time
employee’s time from Cape May NWR is spent providing
management, maintenance, or law enforcement support to Supawna
Meadows NWR (for more detailed information on staffing refer to
Appendix E).
Facilities and
Maintenance
The refuge headquarters office is located along Lighthouse Road
adjacent to the Finns Point Rear Range Light (FPRRL). The building
design was modeled after the FPRRL keeper’s house to compliment this
historic structure. It serves as office space for staff as well as a reception
area for visitors; however, the building is currently unoccupied because
there is no staff assigned to Supawna Meadows NWR. Also located at
this site are a 4-bay garage for storing equipment and three other
outbuildings, including a small building that used to store oil for
FPRRL. Buildings at the previous headquarters site, located
approximately 0.5 miles from the refuge headquarters off Lighthouse
Road, include a barn, garage, house, and office. The refuge has two
housing quarters. One is located off Route 49 and is currently used to
house temporary employees. The other, located off Lighthouse Road, is
vacant.
Partnerships The reduced staff time at Supawna Meadows NWR has limited our
ability to fully participate in partnerships with agencies and
organizations with which we have common conservation goals. We
currently maintain partnerships with New Jersey Forest Fire Service,
New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, Friends of Supawna Meadows
National Wildlife Refuge, and New Jersey Audubon Society.
Volunteer Program Approximately seven people actively volunteer on the refuge. The
primary duties consist of maintenance activities such as mowing around
facilities and mowing and maintaining trails. The activities of the
volunteers are critical to the operation of the refuge due to the lack of
assigned full-time staff. Volunteers also engage in outreach activities
sponsored by the Friends of Supawna Meadows NWR.
Friends Program The Friends of Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge was created
in 2003 by local residents and volunteers. The mission of the group is
“To enhance this national treasure by fostering community awareness,
conducting outreach and environmental education, and supporting
habitat and wildlife conservation on the refuge.” The group currently
consists of about 50 members; however, the number of members is
increasing and the group is actively working to raise the profile of the
refuge.
The group’s primary annual activity is the Youth Fishing Event, usually
held in early June. Up to 100 youths attend the fishing derby.
Participants are provided the gear and bait needed to fish. They also
receive a free lunch and a prize.
Other activities organized by the Friends group include nature walks,
trail maintenance days, and off-site outreach at local festivals such as
Septemberfest and the Winter Raptor Festival. The Friends Group is
also active in educating local and Federal officials about refuge needs
and events.
Refuge Administration
Chapter 2. Affected Environment 2-11
Research An impoundment study was conducted on the Tract 11 impoundment
from 2005 through 2008 in cooperation with 22 other refuges in the
northeast and midwest. The objectives of the study were to determine
the response of waterbirds, plants, and invertebrates while providing
habitat for migratory waterbirds; to use impoundment bathymetric data
to meet spring shorebird, fall shorebird or fall waterfowl habitat
requirements; and to study vegetation response to spring and summer
drawdowns. Water levels in the impoundment were lowered for
shorebird use and raised for waterfowl use during various times of year.
Special Use Permits
In general, special use permits are issued for associated wildlife related
research projects or studies to cooperating partners such as New Jersey
Division of Fish and Wildlife, New Jersey Audubon Society, and others.
Proposed research projects and other compatible uses are issued special
use permits when they are determined to be beneficial to the refuge
mission.
Biological Resources This section describes the physical characteristics and plant species
composition of the principal refuge habitats as well as the invasive
plant species that occur. It also identifies the wildlife species of
conservation concern that use those habitats. Table 2.5 summarizes the
acreage of each habitat type within the refuge. Approximately 87
percent of the refuge is in wetlands and impoundments, the other 13
percent is upland.
Tidal Marsh The largest single habitat type on Supawna Meadows NWR is slightly
brackish (0 - 8 parts per thousand (ppt)) tidal marsh, which comprises
2,423 acres, about 75 percent of the refuge’s acreage. This habitat type
includes marsh habitat (1,931 acres) and the open water tidal rivers
and creeks (492 acres). The tidal marsh soils consist of organic silts and
fine to very coarse dredge river material. They occur on flats along the
Delaware River to a depth of 20 feet. These features are regularly
flushed during high tides. Tidal pools and ponds are generally found in
the interior portions of regularly flowing tidal marshes, but these water
bodies themselves may not be flooded on every tidal cycle.
The tidal marsh west of Route 49 was diked and drained for farming in
the 18th century. Portions of the dike blew out in the 1930s and the
marsh reflooded. Originally, there was more sheet flow from the
Delaware Bay to Mannington Meadow (to the east of Route 49).
However, flow is now restricted to a few locations and Mannington
Meadow is fresher than the marshes on the west side of Route 49.
The portion of the refuge east of Route 49 lies within Mannington
Meadow and contains a diversity of vegetation. Dominant species
include smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), pickerelweed
(Pontederia cordata), water hemp (Amaranthus cannabinus), wild rice
(Zizania aquatica), rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), and common reed
or phragmites (Phragmites australis). The Baldridge Creek area
contains a diversity of vegetation similar to that found in the
Mannington Meadow area, but there is a greater amount of phragmites
in this area. Several rare plants occur in tidal marshes on the refuge
(for example, seashore mallow (Kosteletzkya virginica) and long-awned
sprangletop (Leptochloa fascicularis var. maritima)).
Biological Resources
2-12 Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
The Mill Creek and Mud Creek areas of the tidal marsh are extensively
dominated by phragmites, which is the most prevalent invasive plant
found on the refuge. Altogether, about 859 acres of the tidal marsh
remains in native marsh vegetation; 762 acres are phragmites-dominated.
Breeding birds that inhabit the tidal marsh include the clapper rail
(Rallus longirostris), king rail (Rallus elegans), least bittern (Ixobrychus
exilis), coastal plain swamp sparrow (Melospiza georgiana nigrescens),
seaside sparrow (Ammodramus maritimus), and sedge wren (Cistothorus
platensis). The tidal marsh is an important foraging area for the nine
Pe