Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Wallkill River
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
February 2009
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting,
and enhancing fi sh, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefi t of the American people. The
Service manages the 97-million acre National Wildlife Refuge System comprised of more than 548 national
wildlife refuges and thousands of waterfowl production areas. It also operates 69 national fi sh hatcheries
and 81 ecological services fi eld stations. The agency enforces federal wildlife laws, manages migratory
bird populations, restores nationally signifi cant fi sheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as
wetlands, administers the Endangered Species Act, and helps foreign governments with their conservation
efforts. It also oversees the Federal Assistance Program which distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in
excise taxes on fi shing and hunting equipment to state wildlife agencies.
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long term guidance for management decisions and set forth
goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify the Service’s best
estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially
above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program
prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffi ng increases, operational and
maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
This blue goose, designed by J.N.
“Ding” Darling, has become the
symbol of the National Wildlife
Refuge System.
Submitted by: Edward Henry
Refuge Manager
Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge
Concurrence by:
Approval by:
Date
Janet M. Kennedy
Refuge Supervisor North, Region 5
National Wildlife Refuge System
Date
Anthony D. Léger
Regional Chief, Region 5
National Wildlife Refuge System
Marvin E. Moriarty
Regional Director, Region 5
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Date
Wallkill River
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
February 2009
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Date
i
Wallkill River
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
February 2009
The Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge promotes the environmental health
and works to strengthen the biological diversity of associated habitats within the
Wallkill Valley. Through active management, the refuge protects and conserves
wetland-dependent species, especially the federally listed bog turtle. We also
support protection for state-listed species, migratory birds and regionally rare
plant communities.
Local communities realize quality of life benefits as residents and visitors enjoy
the refuge’s natural beauty and biological diversity. Visitors engage in a variety
of wildlife-dependent activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation
and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. Through
these programs, we share the ecological significance of the Wallkill River Valley
and the refuge’s links with other natural areas.
We value and seek the support of conservation partners and the public as we
further acquire and manage exceptional wildlife habitats that contribute to the
mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Refuge Vision
Statement
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Table of Contents
Table of Contents iii
Table of Contents
Refuge Vision Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Chapter 1 The Purpose of and Need for Action
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
The Purpose of and Need for Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
The Service, its Policies and Legal Mandates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6
Refuge Establishment, Land Acquisition Authorities and Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . 1-15
Refuge Operational (“Step-Down” Plans) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-16
Refuge Vision Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-17
Chapter 2 Planning Process
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
Issues and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
Plan Amendment and Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10
Chapter 3 Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
Physical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
Cultural Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
Socioeconomic Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
Refuge Administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8
Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17
Public Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-27
Chapter 4 Management Direction and Implementation
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
Relating Goals, Objectives and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
General Refuge Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
Refuge Goals, Objectives and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11
Chapter 5 List of Preparers
Members of the Core Planning Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
Assistance from Other Service Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glos-1
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibl-1
Appendixes
Appendix A Species of Conservation Concern
Guide to Table A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
Table A.1. Animal Species of Conservation Concern for Wallkill River Refuge . . . . . . A-2
Table of Contents
iv Table of Contents
Appendixes (cont’d)
Appendix B Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
Appendix C Wilderness Review
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1
Documentation of Wilderness Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1
Inventory Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-2
Inventory Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-3
Appendix D Wild and Scenic River Review
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1
Phase I—Wild and Scenic River Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-2
Appendix E RONS and SAMMS
Refuge Operations Needs System (RONS) Databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1
Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) Database . . . . . . . . . E-4
Appendix F Staffing Chart
Final CCP Staffing Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1
Appendix G Land Protection Plan
Introduction and Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1
Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1
Status of Resources to be Protected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-4
Action and Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-8
Protection Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-11
Acquisition Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-12
Coordination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-14
Socioeconomic and Cultural Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-14
Attachment 1. Parcel Maps and Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-15
Attachment 2. Threshold Standards and Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-41
Appendix H Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form
Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1
Appendix I Consultation and Coordination with Others
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1
Public Involvement Summary/Reaching Out to the Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2
Release of Draft CCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7
Appendix J Summary and Response to Public Comments
Summary and Response to Public Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J-1
Appendix K Finding of No Significant Impact
Finding of No Significant Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K-1
Table of Contents
Table of Contents v
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process and its
relationship to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. . . . . . . 2-2
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Wallkill River refuge revenue sharing payments, 2000 to 2006 . . . . . . 3-8
Table 3.2 Summary of annual land acquisition for the Wallkill River refuge . . . 3-10
Table 3.3 Summary of annual land acquisition by municipality for the
Wallkill River refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11
Table 3.4 Wallkill River refuge budgets from fiscal years 2003 to 2007. . . . . . . 3-11
Table 3.5 Wallkill River refuge staffing between FY 02 and FY 07 . . . . . . . . . . 3-12
Table 3.6 The number (and acres) of special use permits issued for haying/
mowing and grazing between 2001 and 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-16
Table 3.7 Land use/land cover types within the Wallkill River refuge
acquisition boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17
Table 3.8 Habitat types and acreage within the Wallkill River refuge
acquisition boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18
Table 3.9 Annual maxima of waterfowl at the refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23
Table 4.1 Summary of recommendations for Wallkill River refuge grassland
management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22
Table A.1 Animal Species of Conservation Concern for Wallkill River Refuge . . . A-2
Table D.1 Classification Criteria for Wild, Scenic and Recreational River Area . . D-8
Table D.2 Eligible Rivers within the Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . D-9
Table E.1 Proposed Tier 1 projects currently in RONS database and their
inclusion in respective CCP alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1
Table E.2 Proposed Tier 2 projects currently in RONS database and their
inclusion in respective CCP alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-2
Table E.3 Proposed uncategorized projects currently in RONS database and
their inclusion in respective CCP alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-3
Table E.4 Proposed projects currently backlogged in the SAMMS database . . . E-4
Table G.1 Recent land acquisition activity at Wallkill River refuge . . . . . . . . . . G-3
Table G.2 Acreages by focus area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-9
Table G.3 Wallkill River NWR Land Protection Parcel List. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-26
Table G.4 Habitat types of protected lands in the Skylands Region . . . . . . . . G-43
Table G.5 One-time Costs Associated with Operating and Maintaining Lands
in the LPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-46
Table G.6 Annual Costs Associated with Operating and Maintaining Lands
in the LPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-46
List of Maps
Map 1-1 Wallkill River Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3
Map 1-2 Landscape View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4
Map 1-3 Project Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5
Map 3-1 Refuge Ownership Status Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9
Map 4-1 Habitat Types/Approved Refuge Acquisition Boundary . . . . . . . . . 4-15
Map 4-2 Public Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16
Table of Contents
vi Table of Contents
List of Maps (cont’d)
Map B-1 Public Hunting for Deer, Turkey and Woodcock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-26
Map B-2 Public Hunting for Migratory Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-32
Map B-3 Public Hunting for Black Bear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-40
Map B-4 Public Fishing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-45
Map B-5 Wildlife Observation and Photography and Environmental
Education and Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-58
Map B-6 Motorized and Non-Motorized Boating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-77
Map B-7 Liberty Loop Nature Trail. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-110
Map C-1 Wilderness Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-6
Map D-1 Wild and Scenic Rivers Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-7
Map G-1 Partnership Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-7
Land Protection Plan – Tile Location Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-16
Tile No. 1 Land Protection Plan Property Map – Adjoining North . . . G-17
Tile No. 2 Land Protection Plan Property Map – Adjoining West . . . G-18
Tile No. 3 Land Protection Plan Property Map – Papakating Creek. . G-19
Tile No. 4 Land Protection Plan Property Map – Beaver Run . . . . . G-20
Tile No. 5 Land Protection Plan Property Map – Papakating Creek. . G-21
Tile No. 6 Land Protection Plan Property Map – Papakating Creek. . G-22
Tile No. 7 Land Protection Plan Property Map – Papakating Creek. . G-23
Tile No. 8 Land Protection Plan Property Map – Papakating Creek. . G-24
Map H-1 Refuge Ownership Status Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-8
Abstract vii
Abstract
Wallkill River
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
February 2009
Administrative
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
Marvin Moriarty, Regional Director, Region 5
Beth Goldstein, Planning Team Leader
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 5
300 Westgate Center Drive
Hadley, MA 01035
(413) 253-8564; northeastplanning@fws.gov
The Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge was established by Congress in 1990 with a 7,500-acre acquisition
boundary stretching from Sussex County, New Jersey in the south to Orange County, New York in the north.
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) presents our management plans for the refuge over the next
15 years. Its 11 appendixes provide additional information supporting our analysis. Appendix G is a Land
Protection Plan that expands the refuge’s original acquisition boundary by 9,550 acres. Highlights of the
CCP follow.
This plan includes an array of management actions that, in our professional judgment, work best toward
achieving the purposes of the refuge, our vision and goals for those lands, and goals in state and regional
conservation plans. We recommended alternative B from the draft CCP/EA to our Regional Director as the
best alternative for managing this refuge over the next 15 years. He selected it for development into this
final CCP.
This document expands the refuge’s original acquisition boundary by 9,550 acres, creating a new refuge
acquisition boundary of 17,050 acres total. We will acquire new lands from willing sellers through a combination
of fee-simple and easement purchase. The expansion area includes four focus areas. The 7,079-acre Papakating
Creek Focus Area is the largest, and encompasses a 15-mile tributary of the Wallkill River. All four focus
areas have tremendous wetland resource values, and together they form a key corridor connecting preserved
habitats on the Kittatinny Ridge to the west and the Hudson Highlands to the east. The expansion area will
fully complement and enhance the Federal, State, and private conservation partnerships actively involved in
protecting this unique ecosystem.
Also through implementation of this plan, we will allocate more resources toward managing and monitoring
federal-listed species that now live or historically lived on the refuge. We will take a more proactive approach to
restoring wetlands, and establish a 100-meter forested riparian corridor along either side of the Wallkill River.
We will establish three grassland focus areas on the refuge, and let other small fields revert to scrub-shrub
habitat.
We will continue our current hunt program on Service-owned lands in New Jersey and also open those lands
to bear hunting according to New Jersey State seasons. We will provide at least one additional fishing access
site within the original refuge acquisition boundary. We will increase access to Service-owned lands by opening
at least two new trails and extending an existing trail, and we will also develop new interpretive materials and
work with partners to expand our environmental education programs. Funding and staffing will increase to
adequately support program expansions.
Abstract
Type of Action:
Lead Agency:
Responsible Official:
For Further Information:
The Purpose of and Need for Action
■ Introduction
■ The Purpose and Need for Action
■ Refuge Overview
■ The Service, its Policies and Legal Mandates
■ Refuge Establishment, Land Acquisition Authorities and
Purposes
■ Refuge Operational Plans (“Step-Down” Plans)
■ Refuge Vision Statement
■ Refuge Goals
Chapter 1
The Wallkill River in spring
Edward Henry/USFWS
Chapter 1. The Purpose of and Need for Action
Introduction
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Wallkill River National
Wildlife Refuge (refuge) was prepared pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge
System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 6688dd, et seq.; Refuge
Improvement Act). An Environmental Assessment (EA), required by the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), was prepared with the draft
CCP.
This final CCP presents the combination of management goals, objectives, and
strategies that we believe will best achieve our vision for the refuge; contribute
to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System); achieve
refuge purposes; fulfill legal mandates; address key issues; incorporate sound
principles of fish and wildlife management, and serve the American public. This
CCP will guide management decisions and actions on the refuge over the next
15 years. It will also help us communicate our priorities to the natural resource
agencies of the states of New York and New Jersey, our conservation partners,
local communities, and the public. As part of this process, we have met our
requirements to consult with the adjoining landowners and coordinate with the
state wildlife and habitat conservation plans under the NWRSSA, 16 U.S.C.
668dd(e)(3). See appendix I.
This CCP contains 5 chapters and 11 appendixes. Chapter 1, “Purpose of and
Need for Action,” sets the stage for chapters 2 through 5. It
describes t ■ he purpose of and need for a CCP
■ identifies national and regional mandates and plans that influenced this CCP
■ highlights the purposes for which this refuge was established and presents its
land acquisition history, and
■ presents our vision and goals for the refuge.
Chapter 2, “Planning Process,” describes the planning process we followed,
including public and partner involvement in developing this final CCP.
Chapter 3, “Refuge and Resource Description,” describes the existing physical,
biological, and human environment.
Chapter 4, “Management Direction and Implementation,” presents the actions,
goals, objectives, and strategies that will guide our decision-making and land
management. It also outlines the staffing and funding needed to accomplish that
management.
Chapter 5, “List of Preparers,” lists the members of the core planning team and
other Service personnel who assisted us.
Eleven appendixes provide additional documentation and information we used in
compiling this plan.
We developed a final CCP for the refuge that, in the Service’s professional
judgement, best achieves the purposes, goals, and vision of the refuge and
contributes to the National Wildlife Refuge System’s mission, adheres to the
Service’s policies and other mandates, addresses identified issues of significance,
and incorporates sound principles of fish and wildlife sciences.
Introduction
The Purpose of
and Need for Action
1-1
Chapter 1. The Purpose of and Need for Action
The Purpose of and Need for Action
NEPA regulations require us to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives,
which we did in the draft CCP/EA. We find that this final CCP, which adopts
Alternative B from the draft CCP/EA, best meets the purpose and need for
action.
The purpose of a CCP is to provide each refuge with strategic management
direction for the next 15 years, by
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 purposes of the Wallkill River
refuge as well as 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.
There are several reasons for why we identify a need for this CCP. First, the
Refuge Improvement Act requires us to write a CCP for every national wildlife
refuge to help fulfill the mission of the Refuge System.
Second, the refuge’s 1993 Station Management Plan is outdated. Since its
publication, the refuge land base has more than doubled and management
priorities have changed. For example, the northern population of the bog turtle
(Glyptemys [Glyptemys] muhlenbergii), which inhabits the refuge, was federal-listed
as threatened in 1997, and is now a management priority.
Third, we have developed strong partnerships vital for our continued success, and
we must convey our vision for the refuge to those partners and the public.
All of these reasons clearly underscore the need for the strategic direction a
CCP provides. To help us resolve management issues and public concerns, our
planning process incorporates input from natural resource agencies of New
York and New Jersey, affected communities, individuals and organizations, our
partners and the public.
The Wallkill River refuge is located approximately 60 miles northwest of New
York City, in northeastern Sussex County, N.J. (Wantage, Hardyston, and
Vernon), and in southern Orange County, N.Y. (Minisink and Warwick). Map 1-1
illustrates the refuge in relation to the larger Wallkill River watershed. The
refuge headquarters is in Vernon Township, New Jersey.
The refuge protects a combination of wetland and upland habitats supporting
migratory birds, federal- and state-listed species, and regionally significant
wildlife and plant communities in the Wallkill River watershed. Map 1-2
illustrates the refuge which is nestled in the Kittatinny Valley in northwestern
New Jersey, between the Kittatinny Shawangunk Ridges to the west and
the Hudson Highlands to the east. This valley consists of headwater wetland
complexes of riverine habitats, ponds, emergent marshes, fens, scrub-shrub
wetlands, wooded swamps, mixed hardwood upland forests, grasslands and
farmlands.
Refuge Overview
1-2
Chapter 1. The Purpose of and Need for Action
1-3
Map 1-1 Refuge Overview
Chapter 1. 1-4 The Purpose of and Need for Action
Refuge Overview Map 1-2
Chapter 1. The Purpose of and Need for Action
1-5
Map 1-3 Refuge Overview
Chapter 1. The Purpose of and Need for Action
The 1990 law (Pub. L 101–593) that created the refuge established a boundary of
approximately 7,500 acres spread out across an area that includes the townships
of Wantage, Vernon, and Hardyston in Sussex County, N.J, and the Township
of Warwick in Orange County, N.Y. Since 1990 we have acquired 5,106 acres
within the original acquisition boundary. This final CCP expands the refuge
boundary to 17,050 acres reaching into the townships of Wantage, Frankford and
Hardyston in New Jersey and Warwick and Minisink in New York (see map 1-3).
The original acquisition boundary encompasses part of the Wallkill River, which
flows from Lake Mohawk in Sparta, New Jersey, north to the Hudson River
near Kingston, New York, via the Rondout Creek. The newly expanded boundary
encompasses the 15-mile Papakating Creek and a portion of Beaver Run — both
tributaries of the Wallkill River. It also includes areas to the west and north of the
original refuge boundary.
The Shawangunk Grasslands National Wildlife Refuge, a satellite refuge
administered by the Wallkill River refuge, is located in Ulster County, New York.
In fall 1998, we started one CCP for both refuges. However, we decided in 2002
that separating that plan into two CCPs, one for each refuge, would be more
efficient. We completed the CCP for the Shawangunk Grasslands refuge in 2006.
In 2004, we administratively combined the Wallkill River refuge with the Great
Swamp National Wildlife Refuge in Basking Ridge, N.J., to reduce costs and
manage them more efficiently.
This section highlights the Service, the refuge system, Service policy, and the
laws, regulations, and mandates that directly influenced the development of
this CCP.
The Service, part of the Department of the Interior, administers the National
Wildlife Refuge System. The Service’s mission is
“Working with others, to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife and plants
and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.”
Congress entrusts 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’s manual contains the standing and continuing directives to
implement its authorities, responsibilities and activities. You can access it at
http://www.fws.gov.directives/direct.html. We publish special Service directives
affecting the rights of citizens or the authorities of other agencies separately in
the Code of Federal Regulations; the Service’s manual does not duplicate them.
The Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands and waters set
aside specifically for conserving wildlife and protecting ecosystems. Today, that
national network of more than 545 national wildlife refuges encompasses more
than 95 million acres 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 on refuges.
The Service, its
Policies and Legal
Mandates
The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and
its Mission
The National Wildlife
Refuge System and its
Mission and Policies
The Service, its Policies and Legal Mandates
1-6
Chapter 1. The Purpose of and Need for Action
In 1997, Congress passed the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act.
That act establishes a unifying mission for the Refuge System, a new process
for determining compatible public use activities on refuges, and the requirement
to prepare CCPs for all refuges. It states that first and foremost, the Refuge
System must focus on wildlife conservation. It further states that the mission
of the Refuge System, 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 habitats within the United States for the benefit of
present and future generations of Americans.” (Refuge Improvement Act; Public
Law 105–57)
Soon after, the Service released its mission policy. Among its main points are
conserving a diversity of fish, wildlife, plants and a network of their habitats;
conserving unique ecosystems within the nation; providing and enhancing
opportunities for compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation; and, fostering public
understanding and appreciation of those resources.
Fulfilling the Promise
A yearlong process involving teams of Service employees who examined the
Refuge System within the framework of Wildlife and Habitat, People and
Leadership culminated in “Fulfilling the Promise: The National Wildlife
Refuge System,” a vision for the Refuge System. The first-ever Refuge System
Conference in Keystone, Colo., in October 1998 was attended by every Refuge
Manager in the country, other Service employees, and scores of conservation
organizations. Many “Promises Teams” formed to develop strategies for
implementing the 42 recommendations of the conference report. Information
from such teams 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 CCP.
Refuge System Planning Policy
This policy establishes the requirements and guidance for Refuge System
planning, including CCPs and step-down management plans. It states that
we will manage all refuges in accordance with an approved CCP 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 the National Wild and Scenic River System; and
conform to other mandates [Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (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), and 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 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). Appendix B describes the Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy and its
relationship to the CCP process. To view the policy and regulations online, visit
http://policy.fws.gov/library/00fr62483.pdf.
The Service, its Policies and Legal Mandates
1-7
Chapter 1. The Purpose of and Need for Action
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 System
Improvement Act is the key legislation on the management of public uses
and compatibility. The act declares 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 ensuring that it supports the Refuge System mission
and does not materially detract from, or interfere with, refuge purpose(s).
The act also stipulates six wildlife-dependent public uses that are to receive
our enhanced consideration in comprehensive conservation planning: hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and
interpretation. That Compatibility Rule changed or modified Service regulations
in chapter 50, parts 25, 26, and 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations. We may
revisit compatibility determinations sooner than the mandatory 15 years if new
information reveals unacceptable impacts on refuge purposes. The compatibility
determinations for the Wallkill River refuge in appendix B provide additional
information on the process.
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 compatible wildlife dependent
recreational uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and
environmental education and interpretation) as the priority general public uses of
the Refuge System, that 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 them. We
are incorporating that policy as Part 605, chapters 1–7, of the Fish and Wildlife
Service Manual.
Although Service and Refuge System policy and each refuge’s purpose provide
the foundation for its management, the administration of national wildlife
refuges conforms to a variety of other federal laws. Those include the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act, Endangered Species Act, Wilderness Act, Archaeological
Resources Protection Act, and 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 them online
at http://laws.fws.gov/lawsdigest/indx.html.
Bird Conservation Region 28
The North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) is a coalition
of a great number of government agencies, private organizations, academic
organizations, and private industry leaders in Canada, the United States, and
Mexico. It formed to address the need for coordinated bird conservation that will
benefit “all birds in all habitats.” NABCI aims to ensure the long-term health of
North America’s native bird populations by increasing the effectiveness of both
Other Management
Guidance
The Service, its Policies and Legal Mandates
1-8
Chapter 1. The Purpose of and Need for Action
existing and new bird conservation initiatives, enhancing coordination among
them, and fostering greater cooperation among the continent’s three national
governments and their peoples.
NABCI’s approach to bird conservation is regionally based, biologically driven, and
landscape-oriented. It draws together the major bird conservation plans already
in existence for waterbirds, shorebirds, waterfowl, and landbirds, fills gaps in
knowledge, and builds a coalition of groups and agencies to execute the plans.
Bird conservation regions (BCRs) are ecologically distinct regions in North
America with similar bird communities, habitats, and resource management
issues. The Wallkill River refuge lies in BCR 28 (The Appalachian Mountains).
That region includes the Blue Ridge, the Ridge and Valley Region, the
Cumberland Plateau, the Ohio Hills, and the Allegheny Plateau. Ecologically,
this is a transitional area, with forested ridges grading from primarily oak-hickory
forests in the south to northern hardwood forests farther north. Pine-oak
woodlands and barrens and hemlock ravine forests are also important
along ridges, whereas bottomland and riparian forests are important in the
valleys, which are now largely cleared for agricultural and urban development.
Partners In Flight (PIF) (see below) further breaks down BCR 28 into smaller
physiographic regions.
The primary purposes of BCRs, proposed by the mapping team in 1998 and
approved in concept by the U.S. Committee in 1999, are to
facilitate communication among the bird conservation ■ initiatives
■ systematically and scientifically apportion the United States into conservation
units
■ facilitate a regional approach to bird conservation
■ promote new, expanded, or restructured partnerships, and
■ identify overlapping or conflicting conservation priorities.
As integrated bird conservation progresses in North America, BCRs ultimately
should function as the primary units within which issues of biological foundation
are resolved, the landscape configuration of sustainable habitats is designed, and
priority projects are originated.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan (update 2004)
The goal of the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture is to
“Protect and manage priority wetland habitats for migration, wintering, and
production of waterfowl, with special consideration to black ducks, and to
benefit other wildlife in the joint venture area.”
This updated plan among the United States, Canada, and Mexico outlines their
strategy to restore waterfowl populations through habitat protection, restoration,
and enhancement. Its implementation will be accomplished at the U.S. regional
level in 11 habitat Joint Venture Areas and three species Joint Ventures: arctic
goose, black duck, and sea duck. You can access those plans at http://www.
nawmp.ca/eng/pub_e.html. We used them as a basis for evaluating waterfowl
management opportunities on the refuge.
Joint venture partnerships involve federal, state and provincial governments,
tribal nations, local businesses, conservation organizations, and individual
citizens who assemble to protect habitat within those areas. The Wallkill River
The Service, its Policies and Legal Mandates
1-9
Chapter 1. The Purpose of and Need for Action
refuge lies in the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, one of seven priority focus
areas for waterfowl management in New Jersey, including the Wallkill River
bottomlands.
Partners In Flight Bird Conservation Plan: Physiographic Area 17,
Northern Ridge and Valley
In 1990, Partners in Flight (PIF) was conceived as a voluntary, international
coalition of government agencies, conservation organizations, academic
institutions, private industry, and other citizens dedicated to reversing the
trends of declining bird populations and to “keeping common birds common.”
The foundation of PIF’s long-term strategy for bird conservation is a series of
scientifically based bird conservation plans, using physiographic provinces as
planning units. The Wallkill River refuge lies in the Northern Ridge and Valley
Physiographic Province, Bird Conservation Area 17.
The goal of each PIF plan is to ensure the long-term maintenance of
healthy populations of native birds, primarily non-game landbirds. For each
physiographic area, its plan ranks bird species according to their conservation
priority, describes desired habitat conditions, develops biological objectives,
and recommends conservation actions. Habitat loss, population trends, and the
vulnerability of a species and its habitats to regional and local threats are all
factors in that priority ranking. The habitat needs of the top 17 priority species
in the PIF Area 17 plan do not form a cohesive habitat type. Instead, those
species require a mix of grasslands, shrub-scrub, forested wetlands, non-forested
wetlands and forested upland habitats.
You can access the final PIF Area 17 plan at http://www.partnersinflight.org. We
referred to it as we considered refuge management opportunities.
Region 5 Birds of Conservation Concern (December 2002)
This plan, updated every 5 years by our Division of Migratory Birds, identifies
nongame migratory birds that, without conservation action, are likely to become
candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The BCC
compiles the highest ranking species of conservation concern from these major
nongame bird conservation plans: PIF (species scoring >21), U.S. Shorebird
Conservation Plan (species ranking 4 or 5), and North American Waterbird
Conservation Plan (species ranking 4 or 5).
We used the BCC list in compiling appendix A, “Species of Conservation
Concern,” and in focusing on which species might warrant special management
attention.
Regional Wetlands Concept Plan—Emergency Wetlands Resources Act
(Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, 16 U.S.C. 3901(b))
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 using appropriations from the Land and
Water Conservation Fund.
In 1990, our Northeast Region completed a Regional Wetlands Concept Plan to
provide more specific information about wetlands resources in the Northeast. It
identifies 850 wetland sites that warrant consideration for acquisition to conserve
wetland values in our region. The sites identified in the Wallkill River watershed
include the refuge and the rest of the river in Sussex County, Woodruffs Gap
Fen, and Hyper Humus Fen, and the Little Cedar Pond in Orange County, N.Y.
We used that plan to help us identify areas in need of long-term protection in the
watershed and prioritize wetlands habitat management on the refuge.
The Service, its Policies and Legal Mandates
1-10
Chapter 1. The Purpose of and Need for Action
Bog Turtle Northern Population, Recovery Plan (May 2001)
Within the Wallkill River refuge, there is one active bog turtle
site on Service-owned land, one active site on private land
within the current acquisition boundary, and an estimated 10
suitable sites within the current acquisition boundary, some
of which are on Service-owned lands. The northern population
of the bog turtle (Glyptemys [Glyptemys] muhlenbergii) was
federal-listed as a threatened species in November 1997. The
overall objective for the recovery plan is to protect and maintain
existing populations of this species and its habitat, enabling
its eventual removal from the federal list of endangered and
threatened wildlife and plants. Five bog turtle recovery units
and their subunits are identified. The refuge lies in the Hudson
River/Housatonic Unit, Wallkill River Watershed Subunit.
Four recovery criteria set the threshold for determining when the recovery
objective has been met. Those relate to population and habitat goals, monitoring
programs, illicit trade, and habitat management. One criterion for the Wallkill
River Watershed Subunit is to protect at least 10 viable bog turtle populations
and sufficient habitat to ensure they can be sustained.
In addition to listing goals and criteria and describing bog turtle ecology and
life history, the Recovery Plan identifies 10 specific recovery tasks. Those
are specific actions that, when fully implemented, should lead to meeting the
recovery objective. The refuge staff will contribute to the following recovery
tasks on the refuge, within their authority and in cooperation with the
recovery team.
Protect known, extant populations/habitat using e ■ xisting regulations.
■ Secure the long-term protection of bog turtle populations.
■ Conduct surveys of known, historical, and potential bog turtle habitat.
■ Investigate the genetic variability of the bog turtle throughout its range.
■ Reintroduce bog turtles into areas from which they have been extirpated or
removed.
■ Manage and maintain bog turtle habitat to ensure its continuing suitability for
bog turtles.
■ Conduct an effective law enforcement program to halt illicit take and
commercialization of bog turtles.
■ Develop and implement an effective outreach and education program about bog
turtles.
The refuge staff worked with our New Jersey Field Office to conduct an intra-
Service Section 7 consultation on all actions related to bog turtles. The Section 7
consultation is attached to this final CCP as appendix H.
Recovery Plan for Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly (USFWS 1998)
The Service listed the Mitchell’s satyr butterfly (Neonympha mitchellii
mitchellii) as an endangered species in 1992. Most of its current and historic
population sites are clustered in southern Michigan and adjacent northern
Indiana, but some isolated populations historically were present in northern New
Jersey. Two well-known sites in Sussex and Warren counties recently supported
the species. The confirmed sites are both fens located in areas of limestone
Wallkill River NWR
staff track bog turtle
movements via
transmitters.
Edward Henry/USFWS
The Service, its Policies and Legal Mandates
1-11
Chapter 1. The Purpose of and Need for Action
bedrock in the same watershed, similar to habitats used by the federal-listed
threatened bog turtle.
The recovery plan goal for New Jersey is to establish one metapopulation in that
state. Because the refuge is located in Sussex County, where extant populations
of the butterfly were found, we will follow the actions recommended in the
recovery plan to try to meet the goal for New Jersey.
Dwarf Wedgemussel Recovery Plan (USFWS 1993)
The dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) was federal-listed as an
endangered species in March 1990. Its Recovery Plan identifies this goal:
“maintain and restore viable populations to a significant portion of its historical
range in order to remove the species from the Federal list of threatened and
endangered species.” It also identifies two recovery objectives: (1) down-list to
threatened status; and, (2) delist.
The Wallkill River refuge includes potential habitat for the dwarf wedgemussel.
Our New Jersey Field Office started surveys of the Wallkill River in August
2000, but found no mussels. Additional surveys are needed to fully determine
their presence, absence, or the possibilities for their introduction. One of the
mussel’s host fish, the tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), was observed
during the 2000 survey.
Besides listing goals and objectives and describing mussel ecology and life
history, the Recovery Plan identifies specific, major recovery tasks. The refuge
staff will contribute to the following recovery tasks, within their authority and in
cooperation with the recovery team:
Collect baseline data ■ needed for the protection of Alasmidonta heterodon
populations;
■ Encourage the protection of the species through the development of an
educational awareness program; and
■ Determine the feasibility of re-establishing populations within the species’
historic range and, if feasible, introduce the species into those areas.
Recovery Plan for the Indiana Bat (USFWS 2007)
In 1967, the federal government listed the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) as
endangered because of declines in its numbers documented at its seven major
hibernacula in the Midwest. At the time of its listing, the population numbered
around 883,300. Surveys in 2005 numbered the population at 457,374. Although
that number is down by about half, surveys in most states’ hibernacula indicate
that populations increased or at least remained stable in 2004 and 2005,
resulting in a 16.7-percent increase over estimates in 2003. The 2005 population
number is almost at the level of bat populations in 1990. However, surveyors
lacked an estimated confidence interval when the 2005 population numbers
were released, and some changes in methodology occurred between 2003
and 2005.
The refuge first conducted mist net surveys for Indiana bats in August 2008.
Surveyors found three Indiana bats, including one post-lactating female and
one juvenile, which indicates the presence of a maternity colony nearby. The
refuge had previously suspected the presence of Indiana bats, in part because
they have been documented in several nearby locations. A maternity colony
was found in the summer of 2007 in Wantage, about 2.25 to 4 miles from refuge
lands; and since the mid-1990s, Indiana bats have been known to hibernate
in three areas near Hibernia, N.J., about 20 miles south of the Wallkill River
The Service, its Policies and Legal Mandates
1-12
Chapter 1. The Purpose of and Need for Action
refuge. Also, the bats’ summer focus area — where bats could potentially occur
between April 1 and September 30 — includes the entire refuge. Furthermore,
the refuge provides riparian, forested and upland habitat types typically used by
Indiana bats in summer for roosting and foraging.
Recovery Plan for the Small-Whorled Pogonia (USFWS 1992)
The small-whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), a member of the orchid family,
is a sparse but widely distributed plant. Its primary range extended from
southern Maine and New Hampshire through the Atlantic Seaboard states to
northern Georgia and southern Tennessee. Listed as endangered in 1982, it was
reclassified as threatened in 1994. The plant occurs in upland sites in mixed-deciduous
or mixed-deciduous coniferous forests in second- or third-growth
successional stages.
Two confirmed extant sites of the plant are in New Jersey, both in Sussex
County, where the refuge is located. The long-term goal for the species is to
delist it by ensuring its long-term viability. The actions needed for delisting
include
■ Protect known populations.
■ Manage protected habitats.
■ Monitor existing populations.
■ Conduct surveys for new populations.
■ Investigate population dynamics.
■ Investigate species biology.
■ Provide public information and education.
State of New Jersey Wildlife Action Plan (New Jersey 2007)
In 2005, state fish and wildlife agencies were required to develop Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategies focusing on “species of greatest conservation
need” to be eligible for funds from the State Wildlife Grant program. That
program provides federal funds to states for conservation efforts aimed at
preventing fish and wildlife populations from declining, reducing the potential for
listing those species as endangered.
The New Jersey Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) was revised several times: the
latest in 2007. The WAP divides the state into four physiographic provinces
and then further into five landscape regions. The refuge is located in the
landscape region known as the Skylands, which includes the Valley and Ridge
Province, where the Wallkill River refuge lies. In identifying species of greatest
conservation need, the WAP incorporates priorities from all national plans,
including PIF, North American Landbird Conservation Plan, the U.S. Shorebird
Conservation Plan, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the
USFWS species of conservation concern plan, and various recovery plans for
federal-listed threatened and endangered species. The Indiana bat, bog turtle,
dwarf wedgemussel and Mitchell’s satyr butterfly all are identified as wildlife of
greatest conservation need in the Skylands landscape region. Although the bog
turtle and Indiana bat are the only listed species known to live on the refuge, the
Valley and Ridge Province is home to current or historic occurrences of the other
two species. Therefore, our proposed action in the CCP contains objectives and
strategies that relate directly to those four species.
The Service, its Policies and Legal Mandates
1-13
Chapter 1. The Purpose of and Need for Action
New York State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (New
York 2006)
We also used New York’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS
2006) as part of this CCP process. The part of the Wallkill River refuge in New
York lies in the Lower Hudson River watershed basin, which covers all or part of
20 counties and about 7.5 million acres (11,700 square miles). Major water bodies
include the Ashokan Reservoir, Esopus Creek, Rondout Creek, and Wallkill
River. The Catskill Mountains and Hudson River Valley dominate the landscape.
This watershed basin contains many of the same habitat types as the New Jersey
Skylands region. The forested habitats include the Shawangunks, south of the
Catskills and west of the Hudson River, which contain a forest matrix of chestnut-oak
forest (chestnut oak, red oak), hemlock, northern hardwood forest and pitch
pine-oak heath rocky summit interspersed with vernal pools and wetland habitat.
The forested habitats are important migratory corridors for raptors and other
migratory birds. The lower Hudson River Valley, where the northern portion
of the current refuge boundary lies, is a hotspot for amphibian and reptilian
biodiversity in New York State. This area contains high-quality habitat for
wetland-dependent species and some of the best bog turtle habitat in the Hudson
River Valley. Important habitats include red maple-hardwood swamp, floodplain
forest, fens, and shallow emergent marsh. The Upper Hudson River Basin
contains natural and human-created (e.g., pasture, hay land) grassland habitats
that support grassland species of conservation concern, including the upland
sandpiper, vesper sparrow, and grasshopper sparrow. Shrub-dominated fields in
agricultural landscapes are important for rare shrubland-nesting birds.
The New York CSWS names the Indiana bat, bog turtle and dwarf wedgemussel
as three of its species of greatest conservation need. We used the information
about important habitats and species in New York to help us form objectives and
strategies for the CCP.
The Landscape Project, New Jersey Endangered and Nongame Species
Program, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(Niles et.al., 2004)
In 1994, the New Jersey Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife 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 in healthy, functioning
ecosystems. Five landscape regions have been identified: The Wallkill River
refuge lies within the Skylands Region. Using an extensive database that
combines information on rare species locations with land cover data, the
ENSP has identified and mapped areas of critical habitat for rare species
(state- or federal-listed threatened or endangered species) in each landscape
region. Critical areas are ranked by priority. A GIS database provides baseline
information to conservation partners to help in prioritizing habitat protection,
open space acquisition, and land management planning. We used that information
in our land protection planning.
Sussex County Strategic Growth Plan and Sussex County Open Space Plan
The Sussex County New Jersey Board of Chosen Freeholders received a grant
in 1999 from the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs to develop an
alternative to the “State Plan” that provides guidance for the county’s growth,
using “smart growth” principles. The 1999 Sussex County Strategic Growth Plan,
available at http://www.sussex.nj.us/documents/planning/6%20sgp.pdf, identifies
areas suitable for development and those with environmental constraints
throughout the county. It also provides recommendations on open space
acquisition, zoning, and land use practices to protect sensitive natural areas while
promoting economic development.
The Service, its Policies and Legal Mandates
1-14
Chapter 1. The Purpose of and Need for Action
The Sussex County Open Space Plan provides specific criteria for the
protection of open space at the municipal and county level, and considers the
location and purpose of state-, federal-, and non-profit-protected lands in the
county. The refuge is an active partner in the development and implementation
of both plans.
Wallkill River Watershed Management Program
The Sussex County Municipal Utilities Authority, in concert with a Public
Advisory Committee, is responsible for conducting the Wallkill River
Watershed Management Program. Included in that program is the collection
and interpretation of water quality data through a sampling plan that leads to
recommendations for ensuring that the quality of the Wallkill River is maintained
or improved. The refuge is an active partner in that process; the refuge staff
participates in the Land Use Committee and the Open Space sub-committee.
Refuges can be established by Congress through a special legislation, by
the President through an executive order, or by the Director of the Service
through an administrative decision document. Wallkill River refuge was
first established by the Director in an administrative decision document on
March 9, 1990. Congress later enacted Public Law No. 101-593, 104 Stat. 2955
on November 16, 1990, to confirm the establishment of the 7,500-acre refuge
along a 9-mile stretch of the Wallkill River by special legislation. For the
expansion of the refuge’s land acquisition boundary the Director will issue a
new administrative decision document.
Once the acquisition boundary is established, the Service can acquire lands
under a variety of statutory authorities; see Refuge Manual 3 RM 1.3. To date,
the Service has acquired lands for the Wallkill River refuge under the following
authorities:
Emergency Wetlands Resources Act o 1) f 1986 [16 U.S.C. 3901(b)]
2) Migratory Bird Conservation Act [16 U.S.C. 715d]
3) Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 [16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)]
Refuge Establishment,
Land Acquisition
Authorities and
Purposes
Wallkill River Refuge
Establishing Legislation
Wallkill River in winter.
USFWS
1-15
Refuge Establishment, Land Acquisition Authorities and Purposes
Chapter 1. The Purpose of and Need for Action
We anticipate that the Service will continue to acquire lands under the same
authorities that have been used to acquire lands in the past. Based on the refuge
purposes, lands could also be acquired under several other statutory authorities,
including but not limited to:
Refuge Recreation 1) Act [16 U.S.C. 460K-1]
2) Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1534]
3) National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act [16 U.S.C. 668dd(b)]
The refuge was established with these purposes: (1) to preserve and enhance the
refuge’s lands and waters in a manner that will conserve the natural diversity of
fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for present and future generations; (2) to
conserve and enhance populations of fish, wildlife, and plants within the refuge,
including populations of black ducks and other waterfowl, raptors, passerines,
and marsh and water birds; (3) to protect and enhance the water quality of
aquatic habitats within the refuge; (4) to fulfill international treaty obligations of
the United States with respect to fish and wildlife and their habitats; and, (5) to
provide opportunities for compatible scientific research, environmental education,
and fish and wildlife-oriented recreation (104 Stat. 2955).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 602, Chapter 4, “Refuge
Planning Policy,” lists more than 25 step-down management plans that generally
are required on refuges. Those plans “step down” general goals and objectives to
specific strategies and implementation schedules. Some require annual revisions;
we revise others 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 complete and up-to-date.
■ Hunt Plan (reviewed annually)
■ Sport Fishing Plan (reviewed annually)
■ Fire Management Plan
■ Zebra Mussel Control Plan
■ Safety Plan
■ Continuity of Operations Plan
■ Chronic Wasting Disease Plan
■ Hurricane Plan
■ Avian Influenza Response Plan
■ Nexus Statement (Law Enforcement area of jurisdiction)
Unless otherwise noted, these plans are to be completed for the Wallkill River
refuge.
■ Mosquito Management Plan (the highest priority for completion)
■ Habitat Management Plan (the second priority for completion)
■ Visitor Services Plan
Wallkill River Refuge
Purposes
Refuge Operational
(“Step-Down” Plans)
1-16
Refuge Operational (“Step-Down” Plans)
Chapter 1. The Purpose of and Need for Action
Inventory a ■ nd Monitoring Plan
■ Law Enforcement Plan
■ Integrated Pest Management Plan (including an annual furbearer
management program plan)
■ Facilities Plan
■ Sign Plan
In 1997, we completed and approved an environmental assessment for the
Visitor Services Program on the Wallkill River refuge. However, we did not
complete a final Visitor Services Plan because of Regional Office guidance
pending on developing consistency in those plans. The regional guidance was
never issued. The start of the CCP process further delayed the completion of the
Visitor Services plan. This CCP provides strategic guidance for visitor services
programs on the refuge; we will develop a Visitor Services Plan when a visitor
services specialist is on staff.
Early in the planning process, our team developed the following vision statement
to provide a guiding philosophy and sense of purpose for our planning.
The Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge promotes the
environmental health and works to strengthen the biological diversity
of associated habitats within the Wallkill Valley. Through active
management, the refuge protects and conserves wetland-dependent
species, especially the federally listed bog turtle. We also support
protection for state-listed species, migratory birds and regionally rare
plant communities.
Local communities realize quality of life benefits as residents and
visitors enjoy the refuge’s natural beauty and biological diversity.
Visitors engage in a variety of wildlife dependent activities including
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and
environmental education and interpretation. Through these programs,
we share the ecological significance of the Wallkill River Valley and the
refuge’s links with other natural areas.
We value and seek the support of conservation partners and the public
as we further acquire and manage exceptional wildlife habitats that
contribute to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
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 to
and support national and regional mandates and policies.
1) Protect and enhance habitats for federal trust species and other species of
special management concern, with particular emphasis on migratory birds
and bog turtles.
2) Promote actions that contribute to a healthier Wallkill River.
3) Increase or improve opportunities for hunting, fishing, environmental
education, interpretation, wildlife observation and wildlife photography.
4) Cultivate an informed and conservation-educated public that works to support
the refuge purposes and the National Wildlife Refuge System mission.
Refuge Vision
Statement
Refuge Goals
1-17
Refuge Vision Statement
Planning Process
The C ■ omprehensive Conservation Planning Process
■ Issues and Opportunities
■ Plan Amendment and Revision
Chapter 2
Refuge visitors canoe the Wall River in springtime.
USFWS
Chapter 2. Planning Process 2-1
Service policy establishes an eight-step planning process that also facilitates
compliance with NEPA (see figure 2.1, below). Although that figure suggests
those steps are discrete, two or three steps can happen at the same time. Each
of the eight steps is described in detail in the planning policy and CCP training
materials.
We began combined planning for both the Wallkill River and Shawangunk
Grasslands refuges in late fall 1998. In February 1999, our planning team met for
the first time. Service employees from the refuge, our Northeast Region office,
our Ecological Services field offices, and employees of state agencies attended.
Our early meetings consisted of getting acquainted with
the planning process and collecting information on natural
resources and public use. We identified preliminary issues
and management concerns, and developed refuge vision
statements and preliminary goals. Figure 2.1 describes
the steps of the planning process and how it integrates
NEPA compliance. We also compiled a mailing list of about
3,000 names, including state agencies, organizations, elected
officials, individuals, and adjacent landowners, to ensure that
we would be contacting a diverse sample of interested groups
as planning progressed.
In May 1999, we developed issues workbooks to solicit
written comments on topics related to the management of
the refuges. We recognized that not everyone could attend
our Open House meetings planned later in May and in June,
so the issues workbooks provided opportunities to reach a
larger audience. We sent them to everyone on our mailing list,
distributed them at refuge headquarters, and offered them every time refuge
staff participated in a public function. We received 337 completed workbooks. The
responses on protecting resources and providing public use strongly influenced
our development of issues and alternatives in the draft CCP/EA.
In May and June 1999, we held seven Open Houses: two in Sparta, N.J.; two in
Vernon, N.J.; two in Wallkill, N.Y.; and, one in Warwick, N.Y. We advertised them
locally in news releases, radio broadcasts, and in notices to our mailing list. More
than 50 people attended. We also organized several meetings with conservation
partners and state agencies to share information about specific issues.
In October 1999, we released a “Fall 1999 Planning Update” to everyone on our
mailing list. That update summarized the public comments we had received from
meetings and issues workbooks, identified the key issues we would be dealing
with in the CCP, and shared our revised refuge vision statement and goals.
Once we had finalized the key issues in October, we began to develop alternative
strategies for addressing and resolving each one. We derived the fully developed
management alternatives in the draft CCP from those strategies, public
comments, and refuge purposes and goals. In 2000, we held follow-up meetings
with conservation partners, state agencies, and the public to share our proposed
alternatives. Appendix I, “Consultation and Coordination with Others,” provides
a detailed summary of each public involvement activity. In January 2002, we
released our “Winter 2002 Planning Update” to our mailing list. That update
included a matrix highlighting our draft alternatives. Later that year, we
determined that separating our planning for Wallkill River and Shawangunk
Grasslands refuges would be more efficient.
In 2003, the Director of the Service approved our Preliminary Project Proposal to
consider an expansion of the Wallkill River refuge acquisition boundary by more
The Comprehensive
Conservation Planning
Process
Planning Process
The CCP planning process
involves endangered
species, their habitats,
and people.
USFWS
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
Chapter 2-2
2. Planning Process
than 16,000 acres. We met with our land protection partners at the refuge in July
2005 to discuss lands now protected and lands in need of protection in and around
Sussex County. That discussion included staff from local congressional offices,
state, county and municipal offices, and representatives of the National Park
Service, the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, The Trust for Public Land,
New Jersey Audubon and The Nature Conservancy.
In October 2005, we distributed a Planning Update to our general mailing list
and the hunter mailing list. That newsletter described where we were in the
planning process, provided a timeline for completing the plan, and summarized
its draft alternatives.
In February 2008, we completed and released a draft CCP/EA for a 66-day
period of public review and comment. We then reviewed and analyzed all of the
written and oral comments. Appendix J summarizes those public comments and
our responses to them. In some cases, our response resulted in a modification
to alternative B, our preferred alternative. Our modifications included additions,
corrections, or clarifications, which we have incorporated into this final CCP.
Figure 2.1. The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process and its
relationship to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Our Regional Director has signed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
(appendix K), which certifies that this final CCP has met agency compliance
The Comprehensive
Conservation
Planning Process &
NEPA Compliance
A. Preplanning:
Plan the Plan
NEPA
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁐􅀀􀁕􅔀􀁒􅈀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀􀁓􅌀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀁁􄄀􀁎􄸀􀁄􄐀􀀀􀁎􄸀􀁅􄔀􀁅􄔀􀁄􄑅
E. Prepare Draft
Plan & NEPA
􀀤􂐀􀁏􄼀􀁃􄌀􀁕􅔀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅑎
NEPA
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁐􅀀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀁐􅀀􀁁􄄀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀􀁄􄐀􀁉􄤀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀􀁒􅈀􀁉􄤀􀁂􄈀􀁕􅔀􀁔􅐀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀁄􄐀􀁒􅈀􀁁􄄀􀁆􄘀􀁔􅐀􀀀
􀀀􀀀􀀣􂌀􀀣􂌀􀀰􃀀􀀀􀁁􄄀􀁎􄸀􀁄􄐀􀀀􀀮􂸀􀀥􂔀􀀰􃀀􀀡􂄀􀀀
􀀀􀀀􀁄􄐀􀁏􄼀􀁃􄌀􀁕􅔀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀁁􄄀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁏􄼀􀁎􄸀
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁐􅀀􀁕􅔀􀁂􄈀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀􀀀􀁃􄌀􀁏􄼀􀁍􄴀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀􀀠
review
􀀤􂐀􀀎􀸀􀀀􀀤􂐀􀁅􄔀􀁖􅘀􀁅􄔀􀁌􄰀􀁏􄼀􀁐􅀀􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀􀁁
Analyze
􀀡􂄀􀁌􄰀􀁔􅐀􀁅􄔀􀁒􅈀􀁎􄸀􀁁􄄀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁖􅘀􀁅􄔀􀁓􅍎
NEPA
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀁁􄄀􀁓􅌀􀁏􄼀􀁎􄸀􀁁􄄀􀁂􄈀􀁌􄰀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀁒􅈀􀁁􄄀􀁎􄸀􀁇􄜀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀁏􄼀􀁆􄘀􀀀􀀠
􀁁􄄀􀁌􄰀􀁔􅐀􀁅􄔀􀁒􅈀􀁎􄸀􀁁􄄀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁖􅘀􀁅􄔀􀁓􅌀
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀀮􂸀􀁏􄼀􀀀􀀡􂄀􀁃􄌀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁏􄼀􀁎􄸀􀀀􀁁􄄀􀁌􄰀􀁔􅐀􀁅􄔀􀁒􅈀􀁎􄸀􀁁􄄀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁖􅘀􀁅􄔀
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁁􄄀􀁃􄌀􀁃􄌀􀁅􄔀􀁓􅌀􀁓􅌀􀀀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁖􅘀􀁉􄤀􀁒􅈀􀁏􄼀􀁎􄸀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀁁􄄀􀁌􄰀􀀀􀀠
􀁅􄔀􀁆􄘀􀁆􄘀􀁅􄔀􀁃􄌀􀁔􅐀􀁓􅌀
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁔􅐀􀁈􄠀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀀰􃀀􀁒􅈀􀁏􄼀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀􀁓􅌀􀁅􄔀􀁄􄐀􀀀􀀡􂄀􀁃􄌀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁏􄼀􀁎􄸀
􀀦􂘀􀀎􀸀􀀀􀀰􃀀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀁐􅀀􀁁􄄀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀􀀡􂄀􀁄􄐀􀁏􄼀􀁐􅀀􀁔􅐀􀀀􀁆
Final Plan
NEPA
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀁓􅌀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀􀁎􄸀􀁄􄐀􀀀􀁔􅐀􀁏􄼀􀀀􀁐􅀀􀁕􅔀􀁂􄈀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀􀀀􀁃􄌀􀁏􄼀􀁍􄴀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁉􄤀􀁄􄐀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀁙􅤀􀀀􀁐􅀀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀁆􄘀􀁅􄔀􀁒􅈀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀁄􄐠
alternative
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁐􅀀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀁐􅀀􀁁􄄀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀􀁄􄐀􀁉􄤀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀􀁒􅈀􀁉􄤀􀁂􄈀􀁕􅔀􀁔􅐀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀁆􄘀􀁉􄤀􀁎􄸀􀁁􄄀􀁌􄰀􀀀
􀀀􀀀􀀣􂌀􀀣􂌀􀀰􃀀􀀀􀁁􄄀􀁎􄸀􀁄􄐀􀀀􀀮􂸀􀀥􂔀􀀰􃀀􀀡􂄀􀀀
􀀀􀀀􀁄􄐀􀁏􄼀􀁃􄌀􀁕􅔀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀁁􄄀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁏􄼀􀁎􄸀
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁐􅀀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀁐􅀀􀁁􄄀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀􀁄􄐀􀁉􄤀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀􀁒􅈀􀁉􄤀􀁂􄈀􀁕􅔀􀁔􅐀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀀦􂘀􀀯􂼀􀀮􂸀􀀳􃌀􀀩􂤀􀀀
􀀀􀀀􀁆􄘀􀁏􄼀��􅈀􀀀􀀥􂔀􀀡􂄀􀀀􀁏􄼀􀁒􅈀􀀀􀀲􃈀􀀯􂼀􀀤􂐀􀀀􀁆􄘀􀁏􄼀􀁒􅈀􀀀􀀥􂔀􀀩􂤀􀀳􃌀
􀀣􂌀􀀎􀸀􀀀􀀲􃈀􀁅􄔀􀁖􅘀􀁉􄤀􀁅􄔀􀁗􅜀􀀀􀀶􃘀􀁉􄤀􀁓􅌀􀁉􄤀􀁏􄼀􀁎􄸀􀀀
􀀳􃌀􀁔􅐀􀁁􄄀􀁔􅐀􀁅􄔀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀􀀧􂜀􀁏􄼀􀁁􄄀􀁌􄰀􀁓􅌀􀀀
􀀆􀘀􀀀􀀤􂐀􀁅􄔀􀁔􅐀􀁅􄔀􀁒􅈀􀁍􄴀􀁉􄤀􀁎􄸀􀁅􄔀􀀀
􀀳􃌀􀁉􄤀􀁇􄜀􀁎􄸀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀􀁁􄄀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀀀􀀩􂤀􀁓􅌀􀁓􅌀􀁕􅔀􀁅􄔀􀁓􅍎
NEPA
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁉􄤀􀁄􄐀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀁙􅤀􀀀􀁓􅌀􀁉􄤀􀁇􄜀􀁎􄸀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀􀁁􄄀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀀀􀁉􄤀􀁓􅌀􀁓􅌀􀁕􅔀􀁅􄔀􀁓􅌀
􀀧􂜀􀀎􀸀􀀀􀀩􂤀􀁍􄴀􀁐􅀀􀁌􄰀􀁅􄔀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀀀􀀰􃀀􀁌􄰀􀁁􄄀􀁎􄸀􀀌􀰀􀀀
􀀭􂴀􀁏􄼀􀁎􄸀􀁉��􀁔􅐀􀁏􄼀􀁒􅈀􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀􀀥􂔀􀁖􅘀􀁁􄄀􀁌􄰀􀁕􅔀􀁁􄄀􀁔􅐀􀁅􄕎
NEPA
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀀮􂸀􀀥􂔀􀀰􃀀􀀡􂄀􀀀􀁃􄌀􀁏􄼀􀁍􄴀􀁐􅀀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁁􄄀􀁎􄸀􀁃􄌀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀
􀀀􀀀􀁐􅀀􀁕􅔀􀁂􄈀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀􀀀􀁉􄤀􀁎􄸀􀁖􅘀􀁏􄼀􀁌􄰀􀁖􅘀􀁅􄔀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀀀
􀀀􀀀􀁗􅜀􀁈􄠀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀀀􀁁􄄀􀁐􅀀􀁐􅀀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀􀁁􄄀􀁂􄈀􀁌􄰀􀁅􄔀
􀀢􂈀􀀎􀸀􀀀􀀩􂤀􀁎􄸀􀁉􄤀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁁􄄀􀁔􅐀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀀰􃀀􀁕􅔀􀁂􄈀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀􀀀
􀀩􂤀􀁎􄸀􀁖􅘀􀁏􄼀􀁌􄰀􀁖􅘀􀁅􄔀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀
􀀳􃌀􀁃􄌀􀁏􄼀􀁐􅀀􀁉􄤀􀁎􄸀􀁇􄝎
NEPA
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁎􄸀􀁏􄼀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀁙􅤀􀀀􀁔􅐀􀁈􄠀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀁐􅀀􀁕􅔀􀁂􄈀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁉􄤀􀁎􄸀��􅘀􀁏􄼀􀁌􄰀􀁖􅘀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀁔􅐀􀁈􄠀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀁐􅀀􀁕􅔀􀁂􄈀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁓􅌀􀁃􄌀􀁏􄼀􀁐􅀀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀁔􅐀􀁈􄠀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀁉􄤀􀁓􅌀􀁓􅌀􀁕􅔀􀁅􄔀􀁓􅌀
􀀨􂠀􀀎􀸀􀀀􀀲􃈀􀁅􄔀􀁖􅘀􀁉􄤀􀁅􄔀􀁗􅜀􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀􀀲􃈀􀁅􄔀􀁖􅘀􀁉􄤀􀁓􅌀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀁐
Plan
NEPA
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀀮􂸀􀀥􂔀􀀰􃀀􀀡􂄀􀀀􀁃􄌀􀁏􄼀􀁍􄴀􀁐􅀀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁁􄄀􀁎􄸀􀁃􄌀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀􀀀􀀠
􀁐􅀀􀁕􅔀􀁂􄈀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀􀀀􀁉􄤀􀁎􄸀􀁖􅘀􀁏􄼀􀁌􄰀􀁖􅘀􀁅􄔀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀀀􀁗􅜀􀁈􄠀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀀀􀀠
􀁁􄄀􀁐􅀀􀁐􅀀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀􀁁􄄀􀁂􄈀􀁌􄰀􀁅􄕔
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
Chapter 2. Planning Process 2-3
requirements, and will achieve refuge purposes and help fulfill the Refuge
System mission. It also documents his determination that implementing this
CCP will not have a significant impact on the human environment and, therefore,
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required. We will make
these documents available to all interested parties. Implementation can begin
immediately.
We will evaluate our accomplishments under the CCP each year. More intensive
monitoring is proposed for each program area. If future monitoring or new
information results in the predication of a significant impact, it will require
additional analysis.
From the issues workbook, public and focus group meetings, and planning team
discussions, we developed a list of issues, concerns, opportunities, or other items
requiring a management decision. We sorted them into two categories:
Key issues—These were unresolved public, partner, or Service concerns without
obvious solutions supported by all at the start of our planning process. Along
with the goals, the key issues formed the basis for developing and comparing the
three different management alternatives in the draft CCP/EA. The key issues
listed below also share this characteristic: The Service has the jurisdiction and
the authority to address them.
Issues and concerns outside the scope of this analysis—These issues do not fall
within the scope of the “Purpose of and Need for Action” in this plan, or they fall
outside the jurisdiction and authority of the Service. We discuss them after “Key
Issues,” below, but this plan does not address them further.
1. Which species should be a focus for management, and how will the
refuge promote and enhance their habitats? In particular, what will be
the management emphasis for federally listed species such as the dwarf
wedgemussel, bog turtle and Indiana bat?
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 and
habitats of special management concern.
Managing the refuge to support recovery goals for the federal-listed threatened
bog turtle is a priority. Chapter 4 identifies and describes actions that will
ensure its protection. The northern population of the bog turtle has experienced
a 50-percent reduction in range and numbers over the past 20 years (USFWS
2001). The greatest threats to its survival include the loss, degradation, and
fragmentation of its habitat, compounded by the increasing take of long-lived
adult animals for the illegal wildlife trade. The shallow wetlands that this species
prefers are easily drained or impounded to create farm ponds or reservoirs.
Either situation displaces bog turtles.
Managing for this species is at a critical point, especially in northern New Jersey,
where residential development is occurring at a significant rate, and 90 percent
of the bog turtle habitat is privately owned (USFWS 2001). Long-term recovery
is based on the protection and conservation of bog turtle population analysis
sites (PAS). One of the recovery objectives of the sub-unit in our planning area
is to maintain at least five PAS’s in the Wallkill River watershed. Coordinated
management and land acquisition and protection by federal, state, and local
Issues and
Opportunities
Key Issues
Issues and Opportunities
Chapter 2-4 2. Planning Process
agencies will be essential in achieving that objective and reversing the decline of
this species.
The federal-listed endangered dwarf wedgemussel may in the future become a
management priority at the refuge. The damming, channeling, high sediment
loading, and increasing agricultural, domestic, and industrial pollution of rivers
are the primary reasons for that species’ decline throughout its range (USFWS
1993). Surveys began in August 2000 to determine whether potential habitat
for this species exists in the Wallkill River and its tributaries. The surveys
found none, but the presence of one of their host fish, the tessilated darter, is
promising. More surveys are needed to determine with certainty whether dwarf
wedgemussels are present, and the potential for their introduction. Until we
know more, our ability to support recovery objectives on the refuge is limited.
The refuge first conducted mist net surveys for Indiana bats in August
2008. Surveyors found three Indiana bats, including one post-lactating female
and one juvenile, which indicates the presence of a maternity colony nearby. The
refuge had previously suspected the presence of Indiana bats, in part because
they have been documented in several nearby locations. A maternity colony
was found in the summer of 2007 in Wantage, about 2.25 to 4 miles from refuge
lands; and since the mid-1990’s, Indiana bats have been known to hibernate
in three areas near Hibernia, N.J., about 20 miles south of the Wallkill River
refuge. Also, the bats’ summer focus area — where bats could potentially occur
between April 1 and September 30 — includes the entire refuge. Furthermore,
the refuge provides riparian, forested and upland habitat types typically used by
Indiana bats in summer for roosting and foraging.
The Service listed the Mitchell’s satyr butterfly as an endangered species in 1992.
Two well-known sites in Sussex and Warren counties recently supported the
species. The confirmed sites are both fens located in areas of limestone bedrock
in the same watershed, similar to habitats used by the federal-listed threatened
bog turtle.
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 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 17.
Management for waterfowl is also a Service priority, and is one of the purposes
for which the refuge was established. The refuge lacks high concentrations of
nesting waterfowl, but is important during the spring and fall migration season.
This final CCP identifies the migratory bird species of management emphasis,
associated management and land protection, and their impacts on other species
of concern. Refuge goal 1 addresses our response to this issue.
2. How will the refuge manage invasive, exotic, and overabundant species?
Invasive plant species such as purple loosestrife, common reed (Phragmites),
garlic mustard, Canada thistle, multiflora rose, reed canary grass, and Japanese
knotweed 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
Issues and Ovpportunities
Chapter 2. Planning Process 2-5
dominating light, water, and nutrient resources, and are particularly menacing
when they affect threatened or endangered species habitats, as when purple
loosestrife invades bog turtle wetland sites.
Their abilities to establish themselves easily, reproduce prolifically, and disperse
readily, make 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.
We suspect that several wildlife species on the refuge are adversely affecting
natural biological diversity. Native species such as deer, resident Canada geese,
and small furbearing mammals such as 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 federal trust species or degrade
natural communities. Small mammalian predators have been known to decimate
bog turtle nest sites or destroy Neotropical migratory bird nests. Although we
expect some predation in a natural system, concerns arise when it prevents our
meeting conservation objectives.
When deer or Canada geese forage excessively on landscaping or agricultural
fields, or when beavers and muskrats affect water quality, degrade water control
structures, or cause flooding where it is not desirable, they cause adverse
economic impacts. 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. As adjacent lands
are developed for residential or commercial use, the concentrations of deer can
rise on less developed lands, like the refuge. The measures for controlling each
species are potentially controversial. They 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 and 2.
3. What hunting opportunities will the refuge
provide?
The Wallkill River refuge has a rich, diverse
hunting heritage, demonstrated by the number
of hunters and hunter visits to the refuge. In
recognition of that, the refuge has had the
region identify hunting as an “area of emphasis.”
The refuge has held hunts for deer, turkey,
migratory birds, woodcock, and winter resident
Canada geese, in their respective New Jersey
state seasons. (The New York portion of the
refuge is closed to hunting.) As we considered
which seasons to open our hunt program, our
foremost consideration was public safety. In
addition, the Service will consider opening
newly-acquired lands to hunting as well. We
describe our final recommendation under goal 3.
Opinions on hunting vary. They cover the full
spectrum from totally opposed to hunting
to opening the refuge to all state seasons. A
segment of the local community continues to
oppose hunting, based on concerns about safety,
Turkey hunting is one
of the most popular hunt
seasons on the refuge.
USFWS
Issues and Opportunities
Chapter 2-6 2. Planning Process
disturbance, harm to non-target wildlife, and the impact on visitors engaged in
other priority public uses. Others opposed to hunting feel that the refuge should
function as a sanctuary for all species, and that hunting is incongruous with such
management.
Others support hunting only when it is needed to control and manage populations,
but not as a recreational activity. Still others, including state fish and wildlife
agencies, fully support hunting, and would like to see the refuge increase
opportunities to conform to state hunting seasons.
4. Will the refuge be open to bear hunting?
After years of debate, the New Jersey Fish and Game Council re-established a
bear hunt in 2005, but rejected a hunt for 2006 and 2007. The debate has been
ongoing on whether or not to hunt bear, especially in northwest New Jersey,
where most of the state’s black bear population lives. The public is divided on
this issue, as are the people who visit the refuge. During public scoping, some
respondents expressed concerns over allowing a bear season, while others
wanted us to offer one on the refuge. The draft CCP/EA proposed to open the
New Jersey portion of the refuge to bear hunting concurrent with the state
bear hunting seasons. The New York portion is closed to hunting. Service policy
requires that a refuge submit a new hunt package, consistent with 605 FW 2, if
a major change to the hunt program is proposed. A major change is defined for
this purpose as a new hunting activity, adding a new species to the program, or
opening a new area to hunting. In this case, the major change is adding a new
species (bear) to the refuge hunt program. An opening package for hunting
consists of the following elements: a Federal Register notice announcing the new
regulation; a final rule published in 50 C.F.R. § 32.49.C; a new annual hunt plan;
a compatibility determination; an Endangered Species Act section 7 consultation;
copies of letters requesting State and, where appropriate, tribal involvement
and the results of the request; draft news release; an Outreach Plan; and draft
refuge-specific regulations. The draft CCP/EA and the final CCP contains
many of these elements, including the NEPA document, the compatibility
determination, and the Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation. By
publishing the final regulation and issuing a Finding of No Significant Impact
for the final CCP we will complete two more elements of the opening package.
Finally, we will revise 50 C.F.R. § 32.49.C, issue a new annual hunt plan and
complete the remaining elements of the opening package before officially opening
the refuge to bear hunting.
5. How will the refuge provide opportunities for compatible, wildlife-dependent
uses, realizing that those uses occasionally confl ict?
The Refuge System Improvement Act does not establish a hierarchy among
the six priority 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. One example is
environmental education and interpretation programs on an area open to hunting
at the same time. In the Northeast Region, however, we have established “areas
of emphasis” to identify where each refuge may make its greatest contribution to
the “Big 6” recreational activities associated with wildlife-dependent recreation.
Wallkill’s areas of emphasis are hunting and interpretation.
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
Issues and Ovpportunities
Chapter 2. Planning Process 2-7
refuge to support these uses while still managing to provide a quality experience.
Our responses to this refuge issue are addressed in refuge goals 3 and 4.
6. How will the refuge manage compatible non-priority public uses on the
refuge?
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 but 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.
We heard from people both supporting and opposing certain non-priority public
uses that have historic precedence in the area. Most frequently discussed
during the release of the draft CCP/EA were horseback riding and dog walking.
Although we have not done an official Appropriateness Finding for horseback
riding, our experience is that horseback riding can cause significant damage
to refuge resources. Therefore it is not currently permitted on the refuge.
Through the CCP process we completed an Appropriate Use Finding and a
Compatibility Determination for dog walking on the Liberty Loop Nature Trail
and found that use both appropriate and compatible. The Appalachian Trail (AT)
runs concurrent with a portion of the Liberty Loop Nature Trail. Permitting
dog walking on the AT portion of the Liberty Loop Nature Trail would allow
through-hikers with dogs to continue on the AT rather than forcing them to walk
on public roads with limited shoulder space. More importantly, because dogs
are leashed and because the trail follows a dike system that isolates the activity
from the surrounding wildlife habitats, the potential impacts are minimal. We
will also allow dog walking on the portion of the Liberty Loop Nature Trail that
does not run concurrent with the AT because we feel this will not result in any
additional impacts beyond those of allowing it only on the AT portion of the trail,
and because it will allow refuge visitors to complete the loop trail. We discuss dog
walking further in Chapter 4. The Appropriate Use Finding and Compatibility
Determination for dog walking can be found in Appendix B.
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. Northern
New Jersey and southeastern New York have become bedroom communities
for the New York City metropolitan area. Commuting two hours to the city is
now commonplace. That growth threatens natural areas. Many are becoming
isolated islands of habitat, so fragmented that they can no longer support the
full diversity of native wildlife and plant species. Without the protection of large,
contiguous natural areas, species that require large expanses of habitat will
be the first to suffer. As we mentioned above, the decline of species such as the
federally listed threatened bog turtle can be attributed directly to the loss and
fragmentation of its habitat.
During our public scoping process, many individuals encouraged us to expand
the refuge for a variety of reasons. Many expressed concern over the rapid rate
of development, the increased burden on their communities’ services brought
on by development, and their communities’ loss of rural character. Some spoke
of the direct benefits, and even the necessity, of maintaining land in its natural
Issues and Opportunities
Chapter 2-8 2. Planning Process
Issues and Opportunities
state, which the refuge exemplifies. For example, they recognize that wetlands
are essential habitat for wildlife, lessen the damage from flooding, and naturally
break down contaminants in the environment. Also, forests and grasslands
protect the quality of our drinking water, help purify the air we breathe, and
provide important areas for outdoor recreation.
On the other hand, some individuals are concerned that increasing federal
ownership will greatly impact property tax revenue to towns and counties.
Federal lands are not taxed. Instead, the Service manages the Refuge Revenue
Sharing Payments Program to help offset that loss of tax revenue.
To officially plan for a possible expansion, the refuge submitted a Preliminary
Project Proposal to the Service Director in 2001, which identified approximately
16,000 acres for potential inclusion into the Wallkill River refuge in Sussex
County, N.J., and Orange County, N.Y. The proposal was developed in
cooperation with state agencies and other conservation groups during the initial
planning phase of the CCP. The refuge received the Director’s approval in 2003
to move forward with detailed planning for the proposed 16,000-acre expansion.
Although this final CCP does not propose the 16,000-acre expansion as
requested in the 2001 proposal, we do propose a 9,550-acre expansion area
consisting of portions of the Focus Areas identified in the original proposal.
The Focus Areas were refined in response to development by private
landowners or acquisition by conservation partners. We also used the regional
and ecosystem plans mentioned earlier in this chapter to help prioritize our
land acquisition proposals. Refuge goals 1, 2 and 3 address our responses to
this issue.
8. 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 4
addresses our responses to this issue.
9. How will the refuge obtain the staffi ng and funding necessary to complete
priority projects?
Some people expressed concerns about our ability to maintain the existing
infrastructure of the refuge and implement plans already in place, given the
current levels of staffing and funding. They were also concerned that any new
proposals in this CCP will elevate our proposed budget substantially above
current allocations, thus raising unrealistic expectations. They pointed out that
budgets can vary widely from year to year, because they depend on annual
Congressional appropriations. Others supported our pursuit of new management
goals, objectives, and strategies in the hope that the CCP will establish new
Chapter 2. Planning Process 2-9
partnerships and funding sources. It was suggested that the Friends Group can
help to obtain funding assistance.
We identify the levels of staffing positions and funding necessary to implement
our actions over the next 15 years. Appendix E, “RONS and SAMMS,” presents
the management and staffing needs. Appendix F, “Staffing Charts,” lists the
essential staffing levels already approved for the refuge. Ultimately, whatever
funding resources the Congress or other source allocates to the Service, we will
use them better because of having an approved CCP.
10. How will we preserve, protect, and interpret cultural resources on refuge
lands?
By law, we must consider the effects of our actions on archeological and historic
resources. We will comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA) before disturbing any ground. That compliance may require a State
Historic Preservation Records survey, literature survey, or field survey.
Our review of State Historic Preservation Office site files in both New Jersey
and New York identified 63 archeological sites in the area. Of those, 25 lie within
the refuge boundary; the other 38 lie within 3.2 miles of it. They represent both
prehistoric and historic periods, and include structural remains as well as buried
archeological deposits. Although minimum compliance with the Section 106 of
the NHPA is assured, some people expressed an interest in seeing the Service
pursue additional, in-depth site surveys, research, and restoration. Refuge goal 4
addresses our responses to this issue.
1. Urban Sprawl
The rate of growth in Sussex County, N.J., and Orange County, N.Y., averaged
about 10 percent over the past decade. Many workbook respondents and
participants at our planning meetings indicated they are greatly concerned
about urban sprawl, the rate and location of development, and increased habitat
loss and fragmentation near refuge lands. They expressed a desire that lands
be zoned agricultural or something other than residential/commercial. The
authorities of the Service do not extend to local zoning. However, although we
have no control over county or township zoning, we are actively engaged in
working with towns to identify important wildlife habitats in need of protection.
2. Water Quality
Many respondents expressed concerns about the water quality of the Wallkill
River. Many believe water quality has declined in past decades. Many expressed
concerns about the use of herbicides and pesticides on agricultural fields near
the river and their impacts on its water quality. Some noted that their concern is
substantiated by the fact the river has the highest DDE levels of any tributary of
the Hudson River.
Others expressed concerns with town wastewater treatment outputs into the
river and adjacent farm dumping and remnant mining operations. The Service
has no direct jurisdiction or authority to control those practices unless they are
directly affecting federal trust resources. However, refuge staff will continue
to work on the Wallkill River Watershed Plan, and with the Wallkill River Task
Force and municipal boards and committees, to influence best management
practices and restoration activities that benefit water quality and the wetlands in
or near the river or its tributaries.
Issues Outside the Scope
of this final CCP
Issues and Opportunities
Chapter 2-10 2. Planning Process
Periodic review of the CCP will be required to ensure that we are implementing
management actions and are meeting the objectives. Ongoing monitoring and
evaluation will be an important part of that 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 follow the
procedures in Service policy and the requirements of NEPA for modifying the
CCP, its associated documents, and our management activities as needed.
Plan Amendment and
Revision
Plan Amendment and Revision
Refuge and Resource Descriptions
■ Introduction
■ Physical Environment
■ Cultural Resources
■ Socioeconomic Setting
■ Refuge Administration
■ Biological Resources
■ Public Use
Chapter 3
Wetlands are an important refuge habitat.
Kevin Holcomb/USFWS
Chapter 3. Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-1
This chapter describes in detail the physical, cultural, socioeconomic, biological
and administrative environments of the Wallkill River. It relates those resources
to our refuge goals and key management issues, and provides context for our
management direction, which we present in chapter 4.
We adapted the following information on landscape formation, physiographic
provinces, and habitat complexes from “Significant Habitat Complexes of the
New York Bight Watershed,” a study by our Coastal Ecosystems Program in
Charlestown, R.I. The Wallkill River refuge lies in the Hudson River watershed,
which is part of the larger New York Bight watershed (USFWS 1997).
The rich, varied physical landscape of the New York Bight watershed contains a
number of distinctive regional geomorphic provinces and sections. Their variety
arises out of several concurrent or succession events: the combination of complex
bedrock and surficial geology and recent glacial history; historical mountain-building
and land-uplifting forces; and the dynamic processes of erosion,
sedimentation, and chemical and physical weathering on various rock types. That
region’s extraordinary physiographic diversity, geological complexity, climate and
historical events have contributed directly to its remarkable biological diversity
and the current distribution of its fauna and flora.
The work of glaciers and the continental ice sheet during the most recent glacial
period, the Pleistocene Epoch, has been one of the most interesting, significant
factors in shaping the modern landscape of a substantial part of the Wallkill
River watershed and, indeed, much of North America. Although the Pleistocene
began more than a million years ago, and was characterized by a series of at
least four major glacial advances (glacial stages) and retreats (interglacial stages),
its last glacier, the Wisconsin, most profoundly influenced the landscape of the
northern section of this region. The Wisconsin glacier advanced between 70,000
and 100,000 years ago, and only retreated from this region between 10,000 and
15,000 years ago. At its height, it covered the watershed with an ice sheet up to
1.6 kilometers (1.0 miles) thick, although it was considerably thinner along its
margins. The retreating glacier deposited a layer of unsorted and unconsolidated
glacial debris, or glacial till, ranging in size from clay particles to huge boulders
on the watershed landscape. Its retreat left the post-Pleistocene landscape devoid
of higher plants and animals. That rock-strewn, polished bedrock surface offered
a clean slate for the ecological processes leading to the migration and colonization
of modern plant and animal communities.
As the global climate warmed and the glacial front retreated, it left many smaller,
recessional moraines and other distinctive glacial landforms—kames, kettles,
eskers and drumlins—across the landscape north of its terminal moraine. Water
melting from the ice sheet created several large, glacial lakes in the watershed:
The most prominent were Glacial Lake Passaic, Glacial Lake Hackensack, Glacial
Lake Hudson, and Glacial Lake Albany. They lasted for thousands of years,
and their remnants are evident today in lakeshore sand and dune deposits and
basins of deep marsh peat and lake sediments. Many smaller lakes and wetlands
north of the terminal moraine also were formed from the blockage of preglacial
streams by glacial deposits, or were excavated by the ice into the bedrock. Those
glacial lakes covered almost the entire Wallkill basin. Their bottoms received
extensive deposits of organic matter that is the source of the region’s fertile
“black dirt.”
The 1997 report delineates the New York Bight watershed into physiographic
provinces and habitat complexes based on landscape features—geology,
landforms, topography, altitude, relief, geological and glacial history, and
hydrology—and associated biological communities and species populations. The
Introduction
Physical Environment
Landscape Formation
Physiographic Provinces
Introduction
Chapter 3. 3-2 Refuge and Resource Descriptions
province serves as the primary hierarchical landscape unit within which we
group and describe the various individual habitat complexes.
Upper Wallkill River Valley Habitat Complex
The Wallkill River refuge lies in the Upper Wallkill River Valley Habitat
Complex. The 1997 report describes that habitat complex in a rolling valley in
the Appalachian Ridge and Valley physiographic province between the Kittatinny
Ridge to the west and the Hudson Highlands to the east. That valley is part
of the Great Valley, which extends from Canada to the southern United States.
Elevations in the complex range from sea level to 200 meters (650 feet) above
sea level. Limestone, dolomites, and shales underlie the valley. Metamorphic,
crystalline rocks such as gneisses and schists compose the Highlands. The
Kittatinny Ridge is composed of sandstones and conglomerates. The terminal
moraine of the Wisconsin glacier crosses the valley well south of the habitat
area near the Delaware River. A recessional moraine crosses the valley just
south of the habitat complex from Ogdensburg west to Culvers Gap. Glacial lake
sediments underlie the major wetlands in the complex, including the Wallkill
River bottomlands and the upper Wallkill River between the Highlands and
Pimple Hills, Papakating Creek, Crooked Swamp, and Wildcat Brook (USFWS
1997).
The Wallkill River Valley, previously a mix of wetland types, was cleared and
drained during the past century. The valley’s fertile Carlisle muck soils were
highly desirable for farming. Before that drainage, diverse wetlands supported
many nesting and wintering waterfowl. Soil maps from the Sussex County Soil
Conservation District and Planning Board indicate that “prime farm land” soils,
specifically Washington, Wooster, and Riverhead loams, are scattered throughout
the refuge. Unique soils include Carlisle muck and Wallkill silt loam, both very
productive, which cover large areas in the refuge boundary.
The following section on soils was adapted from the report “Archeological and
Historical Reconnaissance of the Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge, Sussex
County, New Jersey, and Orange County, New York” (Maymon et al. 2002).
“Soil information was extracted from the United States Department
of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (now known as the Natural
Resources Conservation Service) county soil surveys for the project
area. Table 1 lists the soil series identified in the project area. Soils are
discussed here on an association level.
“A total of 52 soil series types were identified within the boundaries of the
Wallkill River refuge. Approximately one-third of these soils by count
(n=19) and approximately two-thirds of the soils by area are classified as
hydric. Hydric soils are somewhat poorly drained to very poorly drained,
and may be frequently ponded or flooded. The most common hydric soil
series by area found in the Wallkill River refuge are Carlisle muck, Sloan
and Wayland silt loam, Wallkill silt loam, and Livingston silty clay loam.
“Prehistoric settlement is not generally expected in areas with hydric soils.
Hydric soils in the Wallkill River refuge generally are found below 400 ft.
amsl in the floodplain or wetlands of the Wallkill Valley. Hydric soils in
the Wallkill Valley generally formed from glacial lake bottom sediments.
Those sediments consist of relatively impermeable, thinly layered clay, silt
and fine sands.
“Conversely, non-hydric soils identified in the Wallkill River refuge usually
lie above 400 ft. amsl. Found in small high spots in the floodplain and along
the edges of the river valley, non-hydric soils are usually better predictors
for prehistoric activity. Non-hydric soils in the Wallkill Valley formed in
Soils
Physical Environment
Chapter 3. Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-3
discontinuous glacial till, continuous till, stratified ice contact sediments,
and stratified ice marginal sediments. Glacial tills are unstratified
and unsorted boulders and gravel in a matrix of mixed sand, silt, and
clay. Although these deposits are relatively impermeable, their sandier
nature in uplands allows for better drainage. Stratified ice contact and
ice marginal sediments consist of stratified sand and gravel. Sediments
generally are permeable and thick.”
Much of the valley has been cleared for agriculture and, more recently, is being
converted to residential and some commercial development. Dairy or crop farms
with corn and hay predominated, although horse farms replaced many of the
struggling dairy and crop farms. Abandoned farms are now old-field or early
successional shrubland habitat. Mining for gravel, clay, peat, soil and limestone
has occurred in the area, and still occurs to a lesser extent.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards monitor six types of air pollutants
(carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur
dioxide) known to affect visibility, acid deposition, and human, animal or plant
health. Five of those pollutants are factors in the EPA Pollutant Standards
Index, a daily measure providing an overall rating of air quality: good, moderate,
unhealthful, very unhealthful, or hazardous. The Wallkill River refuge is located
in the greater New York metropolitan area. Sussex County, N.J., is not monitored
for the Pollutant Standards Index; however, both the New York metropolitan
area and the State of New Jersey had a number of unhealthful days in 2002 due
to ground-level ozone. The Clean Air Act (1991) designates both New Jersey and
New York as non-attainment areas for ozone (smog). On most days, prevailing
winds bring air to the refuge from the west and north, but some air pollutants
from the New York metropolitan area filter into the region.
Our Division of Environmental Contaminants updated in 2005 the contaminants
assessment protocol (CAP) originally done for the Wallkill River refuge in 2000.
The CAP process is a standardized, comprehensive approach to assess the
potential threats environmental contaminants pose for national wildlife refuges
and other Service lands. The information below comes principally from the
2005-updated CAP, which identifies several contaminant issues.
As we mention in chapter 1, the Wallkill River flows north from Sparta, N.J., and
passes through Hardyston, Franklin and Hamburg before entering the refuge.
The dominant contaminant pathways revealed in the CAP are the Papakating
Creek and Wallkill River. Many industrial and mercantile facilities and private
residences are located along or close to that creek and the river. The creek and
its tributary, Clove Brook, drain the area around Sussex before entering the
southwest side of the refuge, then converge into the Wallkill River. Sussex is the
largest concentrated population center close to the refuge. All of those factors
could contribute contaminants to the aquatic systems of the refuge.
Point Source Pollution
The effluent of the Sussex County Municipal Utilities Authority wastewater
treatment plant is discharged just south (upstream) of the existing refuge
boundary. During periods of low river flow and high withdrawal demands, the
effluent may be a principal contributor of river water. It is unknown how much
of the water in the river is effluent, particularly during periods of low flow; nor
is it known what impacts on water quality, if any, the discharge has on the water
that flows through the Wallkill River refuge. The potential threats to the Wallkill
River include treatment plant overflow or failure, illegal discharging of various
chemicals, and failing septic systems for homes located near the refuge. Those
threats could introduce elevated levels of nutrients or partially treated sewage on
the refuge. The chronic input of effluent into the Wallkill River also presents the
Contemporary Influences
on the Landscape
Air Quality
Water Quality and
Contaminants
Physical Environment
Chapter 3. 3-4 Refuge and Resource Descriptions
potential for elevated levels of endocrine-disrupting substances, pharmaceuticals,
and other effluent-related compounds.
Sediment zinc concentrations reported in a 1997 Technical Assistance Report
(USFWS 1997a) exceeded the state’s Severe Effects Levels (SEL) at several
sampling stations in the Wallkill River within the refuge. The likelihood was
considered high that adverse effects would be observed among sediment-dwelling
benthic organisms. Zinc mining near the refuge ceased in 1986. We expect the
additional zinc loading from former mines to be minimal.
Non point-source pollution
Evaluated non-point source pollution in the Wallkill River watershed in general
shows a shift from agricultural sources to those resulting from increasing
urbanization. In the upper Wallkill River, the deleterious effects of both
urbanization and agricultural activities are on the rise. Increasing construction
and urban surface run-off have resulted in sediment loading and storm water
contamination, respectively. Local officials have stressed the need for storm
water management, such as the use of large detention ponds in the region. In
addition, agricultural run-off from crop production, pasturelands, confined
animal operations, and a former zinc mine are all suspected of adversely affecting
water quality and promoting eutrophic conditions in the Wallkill River. Other
important non-point-source contaminants include the runoff from roadways,
which can potentially introduce petroleum-related polyaromatic hydrocarbons,
and residential pesticide applications. The historical, widespread application of
pesticides for mosquito control and agricultural production has introduced many
persistent organochlorines into areas on and around the refuge.
The inadvertent or illegal dumping of household or industrial wastes into
the watersheds associated with the refuge is a conspicuous, indisputable
contaminants threat. Spent containers of household or industrial products
(e.g., cleaning agents, paints, solvents, motor oil) have been observed routinely
discarded in stream drainages, on private lands, and along roadways or across
refuge property. Those containers, when compromised by environmental
factors, will release any residual product onto the soils and into surface waters,
establishing a pathway for entry into the refuge.
Pursuant to state Water Quality Standards and the purposes of the refuge
established by Congress, the Service petitioned the New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) to upgrade the Category 2 anti-degradation
designation of the Wallkill River to Category 1, which would forbid
the degradation of its water quality. As an alternative, the state funded the
development of the Wallkill River Watershed Plan, mentioned in chapter 1. The
refuge works closely with the Wallkill Watershed Management Group, the
organization created as a result of the watershed plan, to sample and monitor
water quality in the river. Through 1997, the river was monitored near Sussex,
just below the confluence with Papakating Creek, and near Unionville, N.Y.
According to the Draft Initial Surface Water Quality Characterization and
Assessment Report for Wallkill Watershed Management Area (NJDEP 2000),
phosphorus levels met the state criterion for water quality of 0.1 mg/l between
1995 and 1997. Total phosphorus in bottom sediments was 430 mg/kg in the
Wallkill River at Sussex and dropped to 42 mg/kg in the Wallkill River near
Unionville between 1990 and 1994. This drop may be due to the large wetland
area acting as a phosphorus sink. Nitrate levels are very low at both monitoring
locations (about 1 ppm), but were rising slightly between 1986 and 1995 in the
Wallkill near Unionville (+0.039 mg/l per year). These data indicate very good
water quality with respect to total phosphorus and total nitrate.
Physical Environment
Chapter 3. Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-5
The Draft Report shows fecal coliform levels were elevated at both monitoring
locations, indicating poor water quality with respect to fecal coliform bacteria. As
with many areas in the state, elevated fecal coliform in the Wallkill River impairs
its use for swimming.
The Draft Report also reveals that water quality is very good for most
parameters in the Papakating Creek, a major tributary of the Wallkill River.
However, testing between 1986 and 1997 indicates marginal water quality with
respect to total phosphorus, and poor water quality with respect to fecal coliform
bacteria.
An historical and archeological reconnaissance of the Wallkill River valley and
its environs (R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., 2002) provides detailed
information on their cultural resources. Archival research and interviews
gathered available materials about the history, prehistory, and previous
historical and archeological investigations on or near the refuge. The review
of the archeological site files in both New Jersey and New York identified
63 archeological sites either inside or within 3.2 km (2.0 mi.) of the refuge. Of
those, 25 lie within the refuge boundary. They represent both prehistoric and
historic periods, and include structural remains as well as buried archeological
deposits.
According to that historical and archeological reconnaissance, quarry sites
appear in the Wallkill River valley above 420 feet above sea level, where the
Allentown Dolomite Formation tends to outcrop. This area also appears to
contain a wealth of rock shelter sites. Three rock shelters are known to exist
within the boundary of the Wallkill River refuge. Other camp and resource
procurement sites are located mainly at or near 400 feet above sea level. Each
of the three rock shelter sites within the project area allegedly contained fluted
Paleo-Indian points. The review of collections from several unregistered sites
located outside the Wallkill River refuge suggests that open-air sites in the
valley also might contain Paleo-Indian components. Additionally, most of the
collections from sites in the Wallkill River refuge contain projectile points typical
of the Late Archaic Period. Farmers plowing the fields along the Wallkill River
regularly found artifacts, primarily arrowheads.
The reconnaissance report also indicated early land uses within the Wallkill
River valley.
“In its natural state, the Wallkill River valley presented the earliest
settlers with nearly 40 square miles of flat, virtually untillable land
bisected by a sluggish, sinuous stream. The glacial moraine at Denton,
New York, held spring freshets and runoff and kept the Wallkill meadows
perpetually swampy. Therefore, the Wallkill bottomlands were developed
only marginally, if at all, during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
The few roads of the period skirted the edges of the swamplands, and
farm complexes would have been constructed on dry ground, either on
the “islands” of remnant glacial till or on the toe slopes of the ridges that
defined the limits of the Wallkill Valley.
“Although they knew that these river bottomlands potentially were
very fertile, eighteenth century owners of these so-called ‘Drowned
Lands’ did not possess sufficiently powerful technology to drain them
successfully and render them cultivable. The most frequent use was to
provide forage for livestock, and landowners rented out grazing rights;
the kinds of archeological signatures left by such land use would be
minimal, at best. Because the sluggish river also provided a perfect
Cultural Resources
Prehistoric Resources
Early Historical Land Use
Cultural Resources
Chapter 3. 3-6 Refuge and Resource Descriptions
habitat for eels at spawning time and eels were a
popular eighteenth century food item, an eel fishery
also developed relatively early along the Wallkill and
its major tributaries…. Eels trapped in the many weirs
constructed within these waterways were packed in
brine and shipped to urban markets, thus providing
area residents with an additional source of income.
“The implications of these land use patterns are that,
except for the eel weirs within unmodified sections
of the Wallkill River itself, few if any archeological
resources representing the earliest periods of historic
occupation are likely to be encountered within the
bottomlands of the refuge. Archeological sites from this
period may be found, rarely, on the ‘islands’ of glacial
till and toe slope margins of the Valley. These areas also are high potential
locations for prehistoric activity.”
Development is occurring at a rapid rate in northern New Jersey. In 2006, Sussex
County, N.J., had a population of 153,130 (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/). This
represents a 6-percent increase from 2005. For comparison, the State of New
Jersey had an overall 3.6-percent increase in population. The recent passage of
the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act (Highlands Act) will afford
additional protection for areas that lie within the designated Preservation Area.
It is still too early to predict how the Highlands Act will affect municipal land
use and land preservation within the Skylands Landscape Region. However, the
Highlands Act will result in additional protection for critical wildlife habitat
in areas that lie within the Preservation Area. In the short-term, this will be
accomplished through strict limitations on impervious cover; limitations on
development on steep slopes, in forested areas, within 300-foot buffers of all
water bodies, and in flood areas; and implementation of Category 1 water quality
protections on all Highlands waters.
Orange County, N.Y., had a population of 372,893 as of 2005 (http://quickfacts.
census.gov/qfd/), an increase of 9.1 percent from 2000. According to the New York
State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS 2006), between
2000 and 2015, the greatest increase in human population in New York State will
be in the lower Hudson River corridor; specifically, in the increasingly suburban
Orange County (13-percent increase by 2015).
These towns lie within the current refuge acquisition boundary. We obtained
their populations in 2004 from http://www.census.gov/.
Frankford Township, N.J. 5,660
Hardyston Township, N.J. 7,591
Vernon Township, N.J. 25,553
Wantage Township, N.J. 11,315
Town of Warwick, N.Y. 32,596
Village of Warwick, N.Y. 6,590
Town of Minisink, N.Y. 4,193
Sussex Borough, N.J. 2,186
Socioeconomic
Setting
County Populations
(New Jersey 2005 and
New York 2005)
Farming was, and is,
an important part of the
regional economy.
USFWS
Socioeconomic Setting
Chapter 3. Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-7
Sussex County is a bedroom community experiencing a rapid rate of residential
development. The number one industry for the area is outdoor recreation, mainly
in the form of downhill and cross-country skiing, mountain biking, hiking, sailing,
canoeing, kayaking and birding. Recreational facilities such as water parks
and golf courses also provide all-season revenue to municipalities. Agriculture
contributes to the local economy as well, but overall, farming has declined in
importance. Residential growth has outpaced business growth. The area lies
within commuting distance of New York City and Bergen and Morris Counties
in New Jersey. Because tourism and agriculture constitute most of the economic
base, 60 percent of the area’s workforce commutes to work outside the county.
The manufacturing and technology sectors contribute only minimally to the local
economy, due to the lack of major transportation facilities and access.
Many people living in Sussex County worry that residential development
will increase at an even more rapid pace because of the Highlands Act. With
development limited to the east by the Highlands Act and to the west by the
presence of state-protected lands, the Wallkill River valley is the only large area
of unprotected land in northern New Jersey that can be developed.
National wildlife refuges provide many benefits to local economies. The Trust for
Public Land’s “Economic Benefits of Parks and Open Spaces” provides examples
indicating that property values increase near open spaces. Another document
examining these benefits is “Banking on Nature,” published by the Service. In
1995, 27.7 million people visited national wildlife refuges. The revenue from those
visitors for local businesses was $401 million, and supported 10,000 jobs (The
Trust for Public Land 1999). In 2004, the Banking on Nature report showed that
37 million people visited national wildlife refuges. Revenues rose to $454 million,
and these visits helped support the employment of about 24,000 people. Refuges
provide space for natural lands to perform such valuable natural services as the
filtration of pollutants from soil and water, which otherwise would have to be
done technologically at great expense.
Tourism also increases when refuges provide opportunities for recreational
use, which brings revenue to local businesses. Visitors to refuges usually buy
gas, food and recreational supplies for fishing, hunting, or observing wildlife.
They also stay in hotels or campgrounds and participate in other activities such
as golf or shopping. Our “National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife
Associated Recreation” (2006) found that that 87.5 million U.S. residents 16 years
and older participated in wildlife-related recreation: a 6-percent increase from
2001. The number of hunters and anglers fell from 37.8 million in 2001 to 33.9
million in 2006. The most recent survey also showed an 8-percent increase in the
number of wildlife-watchers since 2001 but little change in total expenditures
for that activity. Those people spent more than $120 billion in wildlife-related
activities, accounting for 1 percent of the national gross domestic product. The
2006 survey revealed that, in New Jersey alone, 2.85 million residents engaged
in hunting, fishing, and wildlife-watching activities, spending $1.5 billion on
wildlife-associated recreation (U.S. Department of Interior and U.S. Department
of Commerce, 2006).
Visitors to Wallkill River refuge are local residents, day-trippers from the New
York City metropolitan area, or overnight guests, primarily on weekends and
during hunting seasons. Those visitors spend money at local businesses near
the refuge. In 2000, one refuge hunter informed us that he had spent a total of
$170 for fuel, food, hunting equipment, and one night in a local motel, to support
one day of hunting on the refuge. Other refu