| Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge Comments on the Fish & Wildlife Service Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Comments from the Audubon Society of Northern Virginia: February 21, 2011 -- On behalf of the more than 5,000 members of the Audubon Society of Northern Virginia, we offer these comments on the Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck and Featherstone National Wildlife Refuges, draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and the Environmental Assessment, December 2010. The mission of the National Audubon Society is to conserve and restore natural ecosystems, focusing on birds, other wildlife, and their habitats for the benefit of humanity and the earth's biological diversity. Enhance and Restore Habitat We applaud your goals in the Preferred Alternative B to protect and enhance tidal marsh and forest habitats of the Mason Neck Wildlife Refuge and the sensitive areas of the Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge. Since many wetlands and forests have been destroyed and degraded over the years, we urge you to also restore wetland and forest habitats where possible. We commend your plans to manage habitat to benefit the bald eagle, the heron rookery and other birds. Synchronize Plans for All Refuges We believe that a single planning process for all three refuges would be most effective in managing the natural resources of all the refuges, which are an interconnected ecological system. The Occoquan Bay NWR plan, completed in 1998, is now out of date, and we assume the plan's review must occur no later than 2013. We urge synchronization of the plans for all three refuges in the Potomac River Complex. Here is what we urged in our 2007 comments: ". . . planning and management for all of these units must be coordinated to assure consistent protection of our natural resources throughout the area. " We strongly urge, therefore, that the Service's comprehensive conservation planning process address the entire, Potomac River NWR Complex, i.e., the Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck, Featherstone and Occoquan Bay units. Complete Inventories We urge the plan to include full inventories of all flora and fauna, as we urged in 2007 and again, we urge you to conduct complete assessments of the health of all the habitats in the refuge. Volunteers We urge you to include specific volunteer opportunities to, for example, conduct inventories and surveys of birds, butterflies, dragonflies and other wildlife, plants and other natural resources and measures of ecological health. Hunting We question the need to allow and encourage the hunting of wild turkeys. We know of no surveys that show they are abundant enough or are a nuisance, measures that would necessitate hunting of any kind. Hunting should only be allowed, contingent on the findings of a baseline inventory of this species. When we questioned this at the public meeting, we were told that it is driven by an executive order signed by the previous U. S. administration. This executive order could be terminated or nullified. We question whether conducting youth wild turkey hunts (page 3-46) is the most effective way to "instill a unique appreciation of wildlife, their behavior and their habitat needs." There are many other less destructive ways, such as bird surveys and naturalist-led nature walks. We agree that allowing waterfowl hunting on the refuge and in Great Marsh would conflict with the establishment purpose of protecting bald eagles. Biologist We believe that responsible management of refuges requires the on-site, regular presence of a biologist and we urge the Service to hire at least one. Sea Level Rise In 2008, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) reported, ". . . climate changes consistent with the impacts of global warming are occurring now." Sea level rise is a consequence of climate change. The Chesapeake Bay is rising twice as fast as the global average. The Potomac River could rise by two feet by 2050, flooding places riverside areas and infrastructure. We urge you to factor sea level rise into all of your planning. Cumulative Impacts We applaud your attention to cumulative impacts of increased visitor use and development. We urge you to factor into this impacts by other federal agencies and state and local governments in the nearby areas. For example, the anticipated addition of thousands of new jobs at Fort Belvoir's Main Post could significant increase traffic and congestion on U. S. 1, which could further degrade the area's air quality. Captain John Smith Trail In coordinating with the National Park Service to manage the Captain John Smith Trail, we urge you not to create extensive shoreline visitor services infrastructure that would displace native habitats and wildlife or cultural resources. Opening Featherstone As we wrote FWS earlier this year, we hope that FWS can open at least part of Featherstone to low-impact uses, such as walking trails and nature study, but we would be concerned about allowing public access to sensitive areas, especially if any state or federally-threatened or endangered species might be impacted. We also urge you to work more vigorously to provide safe public access over the railroad tracks and public parking or better access via public transit. While we need more information on what is known and yet to be learned about the natural resources of Featherstone, we believe the refuge could provide new nature study experiences for visitors of all ages. In addition, opening part of it up to more public uses could offer some protection from inappropriate or incompatible uses such as makeshift homeless shelters, all-terrain vehicles, poaching and gang activity. Increasing the Fish and Wildlife Service's presence could deter these activities and enhance preservation. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. Sincerely, Bruce Johnson, President |