| Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge Comments on the Fish & Wildlife Service Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Comments from James Waggener: February 21, 2011 -- Following are written comments supplementing remarks I made at the public meetings on this subject, 2-3 February 2011. They are framed in the context of my experience for more than two decades as a volunteer in planning and carrying out surveys for birds and other wildlife on public lands in both Fairfax and Prince William Counties, including Occoquan Bay NWR and protected areas on Mason Neck. My perspective is that of a former president of the Audubon Society of Northern Virginia (ASNV) and a founding member of the Friends of the Potomac River Refuges. As I have noted earlier, USFWS regional and local staff are to be commended for working within their various conditions and constraints to produce this extensive and quite handsome document which offers much information on the refuges and raises many important points. However, from my point of view, this draft falls short of being sufficiently comprehensive to meet the demands of the entire refuge complex. Contained within the draft are what seem to be plans for two, essentially separate, refuges rather than a plan for integral parts of an overall complex of natural ecosystems. This need not be so. At the outset of this planning process, various groups and individuals argued that without a single planning process there can be no truly comprehensive plan for the management and staffing of the entire refuge complex. This would necessitate including not just the two units addressed in this draft but Occoquan Bay NWR as well. The plan for that refuge was done in 1998, is quite out of date, and – despite significant issues raised at the time of its adoption – has had no public review since then (although such reviews were promised every five years). Presumably, under current rules, that plan's review must now occur no later than 2013 which is certainly soon enough to warrant its inclusion in this current planning process. There are marked differences between the draft alternatives for these two refuges (and the earlier Occoquan Bay plan) on the matter of whether or how baseline data on the flora and fauna are to be documented. There is no consistent call for full inventories of all flora and fauna, and left unclear is how "citizen science" is to be enlisted to undertake long term counting and monitoring of birds, butterflies, dragonflies and other wildlife, as well as plant species and communities. The apparent incomplete lists of wildlife and plants in this document, and the absence of any data on butterflies, dragonflies and other conspicuous insects suggests a definite need for such undertakings. Not only would a single comprehensive plan better treat wildlife resource issues, it could aid in rationalizing and gaining public support for the vexed problem of adequate staffing. I believe a reasonable person may fairly ask at what point fiscal reality begins to influence management planning? Does it really make sense under present and foreseeable conditions to plan for a multi-million dollar administration and visitors center at Occoquan Bay and a vastly expanded staff (from 5-6 today to 16 in these plans and 17 in the original Occoquan Bay CCP)? Or, does it make more sense to plan for sufficient funds and staff to provide basic wildlife management and public services at all of these refuges? Early in this draft are found references to consolidating refuge lands on Mason Neck as well as the building of a new headquarters/visitor center at Occoquan Bay. In a further effort to secure facilities and rationalize refuge borders, I suggest there is merit in consulting not only with the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority but with the Commonwealth of Virginia on possible joint use of the visitor center at Mason Neck State Park and transfer to USFWS of certain other park elements, including the Jammes property. Returning to the issue of future plan reviews, there is little explanation in this draft about how a fifteen year review will be conducted. Will it involve open, public participation? Will there be any interim reviews? Specifically, how will it differ from the five year reviews promised in the CCP for Occoquan Bay NWR? My personal view is that periodic reviews are absolutely essential, and – in these fast changing times – five years remains a more realistic time frame than fifteen. Of course, the most important point is that periodic reviews are, in fact, accomplished. As to the alternatives presented in this draft, my conclusion is that the majority of actions described in Alternatives B for both Mason Neck and Featherstone may be suitable bases for strategic planning and management of these refuges. Nevertheless, I offer the following caveats: 1. There appear to be incomplete, possibly inconsistent, data on the occurrence of birds and other fauna and flora (e.g., inventories by ASNV and the Virginia Native Plant Society [VNPS] have recorded over 250 bird species, 82 butterflies, 97 dragonflies, and well over 700 plant species). Specific comments are: a. Table 2.8 Waterfowl species using the Potomac River Focus Area [p.2-13]. This table omits Northern Pintail, Northern Shoveler, Common Goldeneye, Common Merganser, and (depending on definitions) American Coot – all of which are regularly documented around the Mason Neck refuge in migration and throughout the winter. b. Appendix A, Table A.1, Mason Neck Refuge Birds of Conservation Concern [pp. A-1 to A-5] and Table A.6, Featherstone Refuge Birds of Conservation Concern [pp. A-14 to A-19]. While I do not have all of the resources to critique the conservation concern status of the birds included in these tables, I have attached current listings of birds documented on/around Mason Neck and Featherstone, respectively. In addition, certain notations for occurrence in the draft appear questionable, e.g., for Mason Neck – Tricolored Heron (would be rare vs. uncommon), Least Tern (rare vs. uncommon to common), and Willet (which would be most uncommon today); and for Featherstone – Tricolor Heron and Willet (as above) and Barn Owl (which is unlikely to be found here as its preferred habitat is open country and preferred nesting is in high, old structures). c. Attached are current lists of butterflies and dragonflies documented on volunteer surveys within and around the refuge complex, i.e., Occoquan Bay NWR, Meadowood Special Recreation Management Area, Occoquan Regional Park, and the Julie Metz Wetlands Preserve. 2. Instituting hunting of wild turkey [3.46ff] seems problematical. Turkeys may be found on Mason Neck, but there is little to suggest from surveys around this refuge (or the other two units) that they are abundant enough for hunting of any kind. This is certainly a step that should be considered only after a rigorous baseline inventory of this species. 3. Staff hiring priorities are mentioned [p. 3-17], but no employee hires are identified for Featherstone NWR in the cited Appendix, pp. C-1 & C-2. 4. In regard to public use of Featherstone NWR, I do not think staff increases are necessarily needed to make Featherstone NWR more accessible to the public. Forty years is a very long time for planning public use of this refuge unit. While such uses certainly should be subject to reasonable limitations – protection of known sensitive wildlife areas, periodic closures for breeding birds, etc. – there are pathways at present and areas of lesser sensitivity that can offer visitors insight into Featherstone's unique riparian ecosystem. With minimal infrastructure improvements this unit could and should be made accessible to the public with prescribed uses that assure protection of its special natural character. As part of that public use, volunteer organizations like VNPS, ASNV, and the Prince William Conservation Alliance, and others should be invited to begin early and comprehensive inventories of flora and fauna. No sound management of any of these refuge units is likely to occur without reliable, up-to-date baseline data. In closing I request that Elizabeth Hartwell be credited for her critical role in assuring permanent protection for Featherstone (as well as Mason Neck). I am sure that Liz would be profoundly interested in how these precious properties have been handled and what is planned for their future. I appreciate having an opportunity to comment on the current draft and am ready to assist in any way possible to make each unit of this refuge complex more accessible to, and understood and appreciated by, the general public. James Waggener |