Parker River and Thacher Island National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan January 2007

"∂Ω¨π
/Ø∂ª∂
3ب"Ø®∫¨ ©¿)∞¥%¨µª∂µ '®Ω¨πØ∞≥≥,®∫∫®™Øº∫¨ªª∫  

This blue goose, designed by J.N. “Ding” Darling, has become a symbol of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is the principal federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the 93-million acre National Wildlife Refuge System comprised of more than 535 national wildlife refuges and thousands of waterfowl production areas. It also operates 65 national fish hatcheries and 78 ecological services field stations. The agency enforces federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, and 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 Aid Program which distributes hundreds and millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing an dhunting equipment to state wildlife agencies.

Parker River National Wildlife Refuge Habitat Management Plan

Table of Contents

Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1 Scope and Rationale …………………………………………………………………. 3 1.2 Legal Mandates ……………………………………………………………………….3 1.3 Links to Other Plans …………………………………………………………………..4

Chapter 2. Background 2.1 Refuge Location and Description ……………………………………………………..9 2.2 Geographical Setting …………………………………………………………………..9 2.3 Historical Perspective ………………………………………………………………...17 2.4 Climatic Influences and Natural and Anthropogenic Disturbances …………………. 21 2.5 Refuge Resources: Current Condition……………………………………………….. 22 Climate……………………………………………………………………………….. 22 Soil ……………………………………………………………………………………22 Hydrology …………………………………………………………………………….23 Environmental Contaminants ………………………………………………………... 23 Natural Community Types …………………………………………………………... 23 Altered Habitats ……………………………………………………………………… 25 Rare Plants and Exemplary Natural Communities ………………………………….. 26 Wildlife ………………………………………………………………………………. 26 Research and Monitoring …………………………………………………………… 34 Land Management Research Demonstration Area ……………………………………35

Chapter 3. Resources of Concern 3.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………….. 39 3.2 Potential Resources of Concern ……………………………………………………… 39 3.3 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health …………………………. 41 3.4 Priority Resources of Concern ……………………………………………………… 42 3.5 Priority Habitat Types and Associated Focal Species ……………………………… 43 3.6 Conflicting Habitat Needs ………………………………………………………… 50 3.7 Adaptive Management ……………………………………………………………… 52

Chapter 4. Habitat Goals and Objectives Barrier Beach Ecosystem and Estuarine Communities 1.1 Piping Plover and Least Terns ……………………………………………………….. 55 1.2 Sandy Beach, Rocky Shore and Dune Grasslands …………………………………….. 56 1.3 Maritime Shrubland and Forest ……………………………………………………… 57 1.4 Exemplary Plant Communities ……………………………………………………….58 1.5 Salt Marsh …………………………………………………………………………. 59 1.6 Tidal River, Bay and Estuary ………………………………………………………... 61 1.7 Nearshore Marine Open Water ……………………………………………………… 61 Human Modified Habitats 2.1 Grassland …………………………………………………………………………….. 61 2.2 Brackish Wetland/Impoundments ……………………………………………………… 64 Thacher Island 3.1 Tern Restoration ……………. …………………………………………………………. 67

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

Chapter 5. Management Strategies and Prescriptions Introcution ……………………………………………………………………………… 71 Management Units………………………………………………………………………. 71 Barrier Beach Ecosystem and Estuarine Communities 1.1 Piping Plover and Least Terns ……………………………………………………… 73 1.2 Sandy Beach, Rocky Shore and Dune Grasslands …………………………………… 75 1.3 Maritime Shrubland and Forest …………………………………………………….. 76 1.4 Exemplary Plant Communities ………………………………………………………77 1.5 Salt Marsh ………………………………………………………………………… 78 Human Modified Habitats 2.1 Grassland………………………. ………………………………………………………80 2.2 Brackish Wetland/Impoundments.. …………………………………………………… 81 Thacher Island 3.1 Tern Restoration …………………………………………………………………….. 83

Literature Cited

Appendices Appendix A List of Preparers ……………………………………………………….……… 93 Appendix B Habitat Classifications ………………………………………………….……... 94 Appendix C Plant List for Parker River NWR ………………………………………………97 Appendix D Non-bird animal species documented at Parker River NWR …………………109 Appendix E Potential Resources of Concern in the Region and on Parker River NWR……113 Appendix F Past North Pool Improvement Feasibility Studies……………………………..119 Appendix G Potential Management Practices……………………………………………….121

List of Tables Table 2-1 National Vegetation Classification System Association………………………..24 Table 2-2 Cross-walk of Habitat Types and NVCS Associations ………………………...25 Table 2-3 Fish species in Parker River-Plum Island Sound Estuary ……………………...31 Table 2-4 Invasive Species on the Parker River NWR ……………………………………33 Table 3-1 Priority Resources of Concern by Habitat …………………………………….. 43 Table 3-2 Habitat Requirements for Focal Species………………………...... …………… 45 Table 3-3 Priority Habitats and Potential Limiting Factors ………………. …………….. 48 Table 5-1 Management Units at Parker River NWR …………………………………….. 73

List of Maps Map 2-1 Parker River and Thacher Island Loci Map …………………………………… 12 Map 2-2 Parker River NWR Infrastructure Map ………………………………………... 13 Map 2-2 Thacher Island NWR Infrastructure Map ……………………………………… 14 Map 2-3 Ecoregion, Bird Conservation Regions, Gulf of Maine Watershed Map ……… 15 Map 2-4 Great Marsh and Parker River/Plum Island Sound Watersheds ……………….. 16 Map 2-5 National Vegetation Community System Map ………………………………… 27 Map 5-1 Parker River NWR Management Units ………………………………………... 72

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR I. INTRODUCTION

Chapter 1.

Introduction

° Scope and Rationale ° Legal Mandates ° Links to Other Plans

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 1 I. INTRODUCTION

2 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

I. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Scope and Rationale

The Parker River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established in 1942 to provide feeding, resting, and nesting habitat for migratory birds. Parker River NWR occupies the southern three- fourths of Plum Island, and is a vital stopover site along the Atlantic Flyway for waterfowl, shorebirds, and songbirds. The primary purpose of the Parker River NWR is to preserve and manage habitat for a diversity of species, particularly migratory birds and wintering American black ducks. Parker River Refuge also administers Thacher Island NWR, an unstaffed satellite Refuge in Rockport, Massachusetts.

Parker River and Thacher Island NWRs are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). The mission of the NWRS is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans .

In 1997, Congress passed the landmark National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, preparing the way for a renewed vision for the future of the refuge system where: • Wildlife comes first • Refuges are anchors for biodiversity and ecosystem-level conservation • Lands and waters of the System are biologically healthy • Refuge lands reflect national and international leadership in habitat management and wildlife conservation

Meeting the wildlife conservation challenges of the 21 st century and fulfilling the System mission and vision requires planning and partnerships. The Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Habitat Management Plan (Plan) for each refuge are essential to the System’s ability to meet these challenges. This Habitat Management Plan provides a long-term vision and specific guidance on managing habitat for the resources of concern at Parker River and Thacher Island NWRs. The contributions of these refuges to ecosystem and landscape scale wildlife and biodiversity conservation are incorporated in the Plan. The Plan sets a direction for the next 15 years (2007-2022) with reviews every 5 years, and the use of adaptive management to assess and modify management activities as research, monitoring and priorities may require.

1.2 Legal Mandates

Parker River NWR was established under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act for the following purpose: “…for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds ”.

Initially, 4,650 acres encompassing most of the southern 2/3 of the Island and associated salt marsh were purchased for the Refuge. By 1945 a total of 12,367 acres had been acquired with funds from the sale of Duck Stamps. Local opposition to refuge land acquisition led to legislation that divested the Service of about 7,700 acres (P.L. 80-579, June 3, 1948). Some of the land was returned to former owners. Some tracts with poor title were acquired by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to form the nucleus of three Wildlife Management Areas (i.e. William Forward WMA, Crane Pond WMA and Martin Burns WMA).

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 3 I. INTRODUCTION

In 1962, the Refuge Recreation Act (16U.S.C. 460K – 460K – 4) expanded the purpose of the Refuge to include “… (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreation development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species and threatened species…”

In 1997, Congress passed the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, establishing a unifying mission and a wildlife-first mandate for the Refuge System. The Refuge Improvement Act declares that all existing and proposed public uses must be compatible with each Refuge’s purposes, and highlights six priority public uses that each Refuge should evaluate for compatibility. These include wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, environmental education, hunting and fishing. The new act also required that all refuges prepare a Comprehensive Conservation Plan by 2012. Parker River Refuge is scheduled to start its CCP in 2009.

Thacher Island became a National Wildlife Refuge in 1972 when title to the northern 22 acres of the island was transferred to the Service from the U.S. Coast Guard. The enabling legislation as amended is 16 U.S.C. 667b – 667d which is an act authorizing the transfer of certain real property for wildlife or other purposes with “… particular value in carrying out the National Migratory Bird Management Program.”

1.3 Links to Other Plans

This section highlights several important refuge, regional, and national plans that guide the management of resources at Parker River and Thacher Island NWRS.

REFUGE PLANS

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act requires all Refuges to complete Comprehensive Conservation Plans by 2012. A CCP is an all-encompassing document that guides all biological and public use actions on the Refuge for a 15-year period. Parker River NWR is scheduled to begin its CCP in 2009. This Habitat Management Plan is typically a step- down of the CCP. However, since we are not scheduled for the CCP for several more years, the staff is planning habitat management priorities ahead of the CCP. Habitat goals and objectives developed in this Habitat Management Plan will be incorporated into the CCP.

Habitat and Species Inventory and Monitoring Plan The 1993 Wildlife Inventory Plan (revised in 1996) describes specific surveys and programs to monitor population trends, frequencies, and abundance. The information obtained from these surveys and programs are used to guide management decisions. After the Habitat Management Plan is completed, the inventory and monitoring plan will be updated.

Fire Management Plan A Fire Management Plan was completed in 2004 for Parker River NWR as mandated by Service policy for any refuge that has “vegetation capable of sustaining fire.” The fire plan addresses wildland fire events with guidelines on the level of protection needed to ensure personal and public safety, and to protect facilities and resources. Prescribe fire programs needed to mimic natural processes and manage habitats will be incorporated into the Habitat Management Plan.

4 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

I. INTRODUCTION

Prescribed Fire Plan A Prescribed Fire Plan is done each year that prescribed fire is planned on the Refuge, and is required for each prescribed fire. The plan lays out the management objectives for the prescribed fires, specific prescriptions to achieve the objectives, and contingency planning for managing the fire. Parker River has not had an active prescribed fire program in over a decade. This HMP includes prescribed fire as a strategy for achieving certain management objectives.

Piping Plover and Least Tern Management Plan (1994) This plan follows the Atlantic Coast Recovery guidelines for managing and protecting piping plovers and describes specific policies concerning monitoring guidelines, protection efforts, disturbance issues, predator control and reporting requirements. The Refuge objectives are to maximize production of the piping plover (with mean productivity of 1.50 chicks fledged per nesting pair) and least tern on Refuge lands. This will be accomplished through the reduction of predation and human disturbance, and through public educational efforts about the plight of the piping plover and least tern and the work conducted by the Refuge to restore the bird populations.

Annual Habitat Work Plan Each National Wildlife Refuge prepares an Annual Habitat Work Plan (AHWP) that includes a review of the habitat management activities from the previous year, an evaluation of monitoring programs, and recommendations for habitat management strategies and prescriptions for the coming year. The work plan documents specific habitat and wildlife management strategies for a specific work year. It is an annual tool to implement and fulfill goals and objectives established in this Habitat Management Plan. The annual work plan incorporates adaptive management practices by evaluating success of specific management strategies and prescriptions on an annual basis.

REGIONAL AND NATIONAL PLANS

The Refuge will continue to work in concert with several State and regional partners in the conservation of our trust resources through the participatory development of the following plans and programs.

USFWS Migratory Bird Program Strategic Plan The Migratory Bird Program completed a 10-year strategic plan in January 2004 (USFWS 2004). The strategic plan seeks to conserve and manage migratory bird populations and their habitats, and Refuges can provide high quality habitat for many migratory birds. Two strategies to achieve these goals are bird population monitoring and habitat management. Refuges contribute to these strategies by conducting biological surveys and managing habitat on a local scale. The Parker River Habitat Management Plan will use, to the maximum extent practicable, standardized monitoring protocols and habitat assessments on Refuges, thus contributing to region-wide assessments of population trends and effects of habitat management on migratory birds.

North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) The Initiative brings together the landbird, shorebird, waterbird, and waterfowl plans into a coordinated effort to protect and restore all native bird populations and their habitats in North America. Conservation partnerships reduce redundancy in the structure, planning and implementation of conservation projects. The Initiative utilizes Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) to guide landscape scale, science-based approaches to conserving birds and their habitats. Conservation planning within BCR 30 was initiated in winter of 2005.

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 5 I. INTRODUCTION

Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation Plan for Physiographic Area 9, Southern New England In the absence of a BCR 30 Conservation Plan, the Parker River NWR Habitat Management Plan used priorities set forth in the Partners in Flight (PIF) Physiographic Area 9 Plan (a subsection of BCR 30) along with priorities of other conservation plans. Many of the bird priorities in BCR 30 occur in states south of New England. Refuge staff will participate in the development of the BCR 30 plan and will utilize the information and guidance of the PIF Area 9 plan until its completion.

Recovery Plans Parker River NWR was identified in the Atlantic Coast Piping Plover Recovery Plan (USFWS 1996) as having suitable piping plover habitat if intensive management is conducted. Piping plover ( Chadradius melodus ) habitat management objectives are incorporated in this Habitat Management Plan.

State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan and Biodiversity Initiative The Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program produced three publications to guide the conservation of biodiversity in the State:

• Our Irreplaceable Heritage: Protecting Biodiversity in Massachusetts (MNHESP 1998) • BioMap: Guiding Land Conservation for Biodiversity in Massachusetts (MNHESP 2001a) • Living Waters: Guiding the Protection of Freshwater Biodiversity in Massachusetts (MNHESP 2003)

In fall 2001, Congress established a new “State Wildlife Grants” program that provides funds to State wildlife agencies for the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats. Each state was charged with developing a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy by October 2005. Through this process the State identified which species and habitats are in greatest need of conservation. Massachusetts completed its plan in 2005; it provides a comprehensive guide to wildlife and habitat conservation and management (MDFW 2005). All of these documents provided helpful guidance in the development of habitat objectives and strategies for the Parker River Refuge.

6 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

II. BACKGROUND

Chapter 2.

Background

° Refuge Location and Description ° Geographical Setting ° Historical Perspective of New England’s Ecological Landscape ° Climatic Influences and Natural and Anthropogenic Disturbances ° Refuge Resources: Current Condition

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 7

8 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

II. BACKGROUND

2.1 Refuge Location and Description

The 4,662-acre Parker River National Wildlife Refuge is located 37 miles north of Boston, Massachusetts, within the Towns of Newbury, Rowley and Ipswich (Map-2-2). The Refuge occupies the southern three-fourths of Plum Island, a 9-mile long barrier island. The State of Massachusetts manages the most southern tip of the island as the Sandy Point State Reservation, with public access through the Refuge. The Refuge headquarters and visitor’s center is located on the mainland in Newburyport, a city with a population of 17,189. Tourism is an important part of the local economy and approximately 250,000 visitors come to the Refuge annually.

The Refuge hosts many exemplary natural communities of barrier island ecosystems. These include 2,660 acres of salt marsh habitat, 540 acres of maritime dunes, 333 acres of maritime shrub and forest, 130 acres of grasslands, 182 acres of tidal estuary, beach, and associated mudflats. Approximately 150 acres of dune habitats from Lot 3 to Sea Haven (old Polio Camp) was designated the Ludlow Griscom Research Natural Area. The ecological processes (e.g., salt spray, storm surges) that maintain these coastal communities are largely intact on Plum Island, ensuring the long-term survival and ecological integrity of these coastal communities. In the 1940s, the Refuge created three impoundments, North Pool, Bill Forward Pool, and Stage Island Pool, as breeding habitat for American black ducks and other waterfowl. Over time, management of these impoundments has been expanded to benefit shorebirds and breeding marsh birds.

Parker River administers the Thacher Island National Wildlife Refuge, which is located about 1.5 miles east of Rockport, Massachusetts. Refuge lands consist of approximately 22 acres at the north end of the island (Map 2-3).

2.2 Geographical Setting

Biophysical Ecoregion The Nature Conservancy has delineated the continental United States into 63 ecoregions—large geographic areas that share similar geologic, topographic, ecological, and climatic characteristics. These ecoregions are a modification of the U.S. Forest Service “Bailey System.” Parker River NWR is in the North Atlantic Coast ecoregion (Map 2-4). This ecoregion extends from Pemaquid Point in Maine south to the Delaware Bay. The ecoregion is characterized by flat topography, low elevations (<600 feet), scattered moraines, large rivers draining into estuaries and bays, and a mild, humid climate. Rocky coasts dominate the shorelands in the north, grading into salt marsh communities to the south. The once extensive forest graded from white pine-oak- hemlock forest in the north, to dry oak-heath forests, to mesic coastal oak forests in the south. Wetlands, beaver meadows, pine barrens, shrublands, and heathlands were embedded in this forested landscape. Hundreds of years of land clearing, agriculture, and widespread development has fragmented the landscape and eliminated large areas of forest. Still, smaller ecological systems remain, including barrier beaches and dunes, salt marshes, and freshwater wetlands (The Nature Conservancy 1999).

Bird Conservation Region (BCR) and Partners in Flight (PIF) Physiographic Area Migratory bird conservation has had a long history of cooperative regional and national-level conservation efforts. The latest initiatives include Partners in Flight, which seeks to conserve landbirds on biological based regions called Physiographic Areas; and North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI), which strives to unite all bird conservation initiatives to conserve all birds on regionally-based scale. The conservation planning units for NABCI are called Bird Conservation Regions, and are generally larger than the PIF Physiographic Areas.

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 9 II. BACKGROUND

Parker River NWR is in Bird Conservation Region 30, the New England/Mid-Atlantic Coast region and PIF Physiographic Area 9—Southern New England (Map 2-4). The highest priority habitats in BCR 30 are in coastal wetland ecosystems, dune/beach communities, and maritime shrubland. PIF 9 covers parts of northern New Jersey, southern New York including Long Island, the majority of Connecticut, all of Rhode Island, most of eastern Massachusetts, the southeastern corner of New Hampshire, and south-coastal Maine. This area, which includes the entire Boston- to-New York City corridor, has experienced the greatest amount of urbanization of any part of the Northeast. Urbanization and associated human activities severely threaten remaining high- priority habitats, especially maritime marshes and dunes, relict grasslands, and mature deciduous forests (Dettmers and Rosenberg 2000).

Atlantic Coast Flyway Flyways have been used for many years in North America as the unit for managing waterfowl populations because they allow land managers to link efforts to conserve migratory bird species and their habitats on breeding, migration, and wintering grounds. The Atlantic Coast Joint Venture area encompasses the 17 Atlantic Flyway states and Puerto Rico. The habitats range from boreal forest and rocky coastlines to mangrove wetlands and coral reefs. Over 600 native bird species breed, migrate and winter in the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture. In this large area, the Joint Venture partners work together to assess the status, trends, and needs of bird populations and their habitats. The partners then use this information to help guide the distribution of resources to the needs/issues of highest priority.

Broad Vegetation Zones As discussed under site capability in Appendix B, land cover maps and data usually describe a habitat condition at a specific point in time but don’t necessarily describe potential vegetation or successional trajectories. Maps of potential vegetation by Westveld et al. (1956) and Kuchler (1964) depict broad vegetation zones for New England. Parker River NWR lies within the central hardwoods (Appalachian oak)-hemlock-white pine zone. Maritime conditions strongly influence the vegetative conditions on the Refuge.

Gulf of Maine Watershed The Refuge lies within the Gulf of Maine watershed (Map 2-4). It is an immense area, extending from eastern Quebec to Cape Cod, Massachusetts, with a land base of 69,115 square miles and a water surface of 33,054 miles. One of the world’s most productive environments, the Gulf of Maine’s marine waters and shoreline habitats host some 2,000 species of plants and animals. Ocean currents control temperatures and bring nutrients and food to the plants and animals that occupy the rich undersea terrain.

Great Marsh Ecosystem Parker River NWR is situated within the “Great Marsh,” the largest contiguous salt marsh north of Long Island, New York, extending from Gloucester, Massachusetts to the New Hampshire border (Map 2-5). The Great Marsh encompasses approximately 25,000 acres of barrier beach, dune, salt marsh, tidal river, and other water bodies. In recognition of its important wildlife value, a large portion of the area was designated by the State of Massachusetts as the Parker River/Essex Bay Area of Critical Environmental Concern in 1979. An Area of Critical Concern receives special consideration and protection by the State. The Great Marsh was also designated a Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network Regional site for its importance as a migration stopover for shorebirds.

10 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

II. BACKGROUND

Parker River Watershed and Plum Island Sound The Parker River watershed is located in the northeast corner of Massachusetts, between the Merrimack River watershed to the north and the Ipswich River watershed to the south (Map 2-5). It drains an area of 82 square miles, meandering 21 miles from its headwaters through a rolling landscape before emptying into Plum Island Sound at the Parker River Refuge (http://www.mass.gov/envir/water/parker/parker.htm ). Of the estimated 52,000 acres in the Parker River watershed approximately 15,000 acres, or 29% of the watershed, are in some form of permanent protection either through public ownership or with conservation easements or agriculture preservation restrictions (Tomczyk 2002). Tomczyk (2002) identified nine subwatersheds, including the Rowley River subwatershed, which empties directly into Plum Island Sound and the estuarine portion of the Parker River.

Many groups are working within the watershed on water quality and water quantity monitoring, land use issues, and habitat and open space protection. Water quality is considered very good in most areas although some areas are at risk of nutrient enrichment leading to algae blooms including Plum Island Sound. Most of the waters in Plum Island Sound are “conditionally approved” for shellfishing. This means that the shellfish beds may be open for harvest except during certain rainfall events. The tidal portions of the watershed support populations of soft- shelled clams, surf clams, and blue mussels and many species of finfish including herring, menhaden, striped bass, bluefish, and flounder (Tomczyk 2002).

The Parker River/Plum Island Sound Watershed has been part of Long Term Ecological Research Network since 1998. Scientists from the Ecosystems Center at the Marine Biological Laboratory, the University of South Carolina, the Massachusetts Audubon Society, the Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve, the University of New Hampshire and Clark University conduct research on how changing land use, climate and sea levels will affect trophic structure and productivity in the estuary.

Regional Conservation Context The Refuge is located on the southern three-fourths of Plum Island, within the Towns of Newbury, Rowley and Ipswich (Map 2-2). The north end of the island is densely developed and continues to receive development pressure. Two administrative properties are located within the City of Newburyport.

The region is predominantly rural and typical of New England towns. Much of the land surrounding the Refuge is in some degree of conservation (Map 2-5). Local and state wetland protection laws limit development of these lands. The refuge is in an Area of Critical Environmental Concern, which affords an extra measure of protection for sensitive resources.

On the mainland, lands that were acquired at the time of Refuge establishment but subsequently divested are now Wildlife Management Areas, managed by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries, Wildlife and Environmental Law Enforcement. The Essex County Greenbelt Association and The Trustees of Reservations, two local land trusts, own significant portions of adjacent salt marsh and uplands for conservation.

An industrial park is located within the city of Newburyport, and the city has a quaint and seasonally bustling downtown retail and waterfront area popular with day visitors. Residential development and agriculture make up the remainder of most of the adjacent land use.

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 11 II. BACKGROUND

Map 2-1 Parker River and Thacher Island Loci Map

12 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

II. BACKGROUND

Map 2-2 Parker River National Wildlife Refuge Infrastructure Map

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 13 II. BACKGROUND

Map 2-3 Thacher Island NWR Insfrastructure Map

14 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

II. BACKGROUND

Map 2-4 Ecoregion, Bird Conservation Regions, Gulf of Maine Watershed Map

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 15 II. BACKGROUND

Map 2-5 Great Marsh and Parker River/Plum Island Sound Watersheds

16 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

II. BACKGROUND

Thacher Island NWR is located 1.5 miles off the coast of the Town of Rockport and occupies 22 acres of the island. The Town owns the remaining 28 acres. The Thacher Island Town Committee and the Thacher Island Association manage the town-owned portion of the island as a historic site and tourist destination. The Cape Ann Light Station, located on the island, was designated a National Historic Landmark in 2000. Its unique feature is the twin lighthouses, one of which is located on the refuge and the other, with the Keeper’s House and out buildings, is located on the town property. Approximately 5,000 visitors visit the island annually. There are no year round residents on the island. Seasonal “Keepers” maintain the facilities, host overnight guests, and provide “eyes and ears” for the Refuge.

2.3 Historical Perspective of New England’s Ecological Landscape

The Earth has experienced several glacial periods. Glaciers advanced and retreated over time as temperatures fluctuated. The most recent period to affect New England was the Wisconsin Glaciation that reached its maximum extent about 23,000 years ago. A one-mile thick sheet of ice, known as the Laurentide Ice Sheet, covered the region until its retreat northward, and was gone from southern New England by about 15,000 years ago (Oldale 2001). As the glacier retreated it left behind piles or layers of sediments, rocks, and other debris, known as glacial drift. These surficial deposits over bedrock come in two types in our region: glacial till and glacio- fluvial. Glacial till is a mixture of sand, silt, clay, and rock ground up by the glacier and dropped as it retreated. It covers most of our region, deepest on lower slopes, and thin or absent on mountaintops and ridges. Glacio-fluvial drift develops from the transport, sorting, and deposit of material by flowing glacial meltwater. Larger gravels and stones settle out at higher gradients, while finer silts, sands, and clays settle out at as the waters slow at valley bottoms (Sperduto and Nichols 2004).

After the Ice Age Twelve thousand years ago New England emerged from the latest ice age. The mile-thick ice scraped and molded the valleys, slopes, and mountain tops, leaving behind a landscape bare of vegetation. At the southern edge of the glacier, however, plants survived and immediately began to re-colonize the newly exposed soils (Marchand 1987). Large mammals, including mastodons, wandered the spruce parkland and grassy savanna, but disappeared quickly as the glacier receded and humans advanced across the region. Thirty-five to 40 large mammals became extinct 9,000 to 12,000 years ago, while other mammals that were around then, such as timber wolf and white tailed deer, are still present today (Pielou 1991, Askins 2000).

Continual weathering and erosion of rock over time released nutrients and created new soils for plants to grow. The tundra-like landscape was dominated by sedges and dwarf shrubs for several thousand years. As the climate warmed, these plants and animals followed the glacier as it receded north. The tundra continued to retreat, eventually restricted to the highest mountaintops (Davis 1983, Marchand 1987). Hardwood and softwood tree species advanced independently of one another creating different forest communities through time (Davis 1983). Graham (1992) reported a similar individualistic response by mammals to the post-glacier climate changes.

Spruces were the first trees to colonize, nearly 2,000 years after the ice melted. About 10,000 years ago spruce declined over a wide area, replaced by a more diverse community of conifers including jack, red and white pine, balsam fir and hardwoods (birch, elm, oak, ash, hornbeam, and ironwood). Alder reached peak abundance as spruce declined (Davis 1981, Davis 1983, Pielou 1991, DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001). Chestnut, hickory, red maple, beech, and hemlock all

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 17 II. BACKGROUND

arrived later (Davis 1983). Eastern hemlock showed up about 1,000 years after white pine and then experienced a sudden and widespread dieback 4,800 years ago, shortly after hickory arrived in the region. Hemlock regained its former abundance 2,000 years later. In Northern New England northern hardwoods—American beech, sugar maple, and yellow birch—established their dominance 2,000 years ago while spruce regained dominance on the middle slopes (Davis 1981, Davis 1983, Marchand 1987, Pielou 1991).

Plum Island was formed as a direct result of the last ice age, although the process by which the island formed is a matter of great controversy. The following theory of Plum Island formation is provided by Professor Duncan Fitzgerlad (2005 pers. comm.) based on studies by McCormick (1969), McIntire and Morgan (1964), and Rhodes (1971). Sea level during the last glacial period was about 400 feet lower than today in the region of Plum Island Sound. The sea level rose as melting glaciers released large amounts of water and deposited silt and clay in low areas newly inundated by the rising sea. As the glacier melted away and the weight of the ice gone, the earth’s crust literally lifted up, raising some of the marine sediments above present day sea level. As the glaciers retreated, two types of sediments were deposited in the Plum Island region, a galcio-fluvial deposit of sand from the Merrimack River into the Plum Island Delta, and glacial till deposits along the shore in the form of four drumlins (or ridges of glacial drift): Bar Head, Stage Island, Grape Island, and Cross Farm Hill. As the glaciers retreated, the rising sea water reworked the large sand deposit in the Delta, creating small sand bars. As sea level continued to rise, additional sand from the Merrimack River added to the growing sand bars and around the drumlins. The prevalent north-south currents eventually formed the accumulating sand bars and drumlins into a long spit around 4,000-6,000 year ago. Protected from maritime influences, salt marshes began to develop behind the sand spit while additional dunes formed on the oceanside, further widening the barrier island over time.

Pre-European Settlement Native Americans were growing crops and cutting the forests for fuel long before Europeans arrived on the shores of Massachusetts (Foster and Motzkin 2003). Native peoples burned the forest understory to improve travel and hunting for game (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001, Foster and Motzkin 2003). Patterson and Sassaman (1988) suggested that more sedentary and concentrated indigenous populations in coastal southern New England likely set repeated fires that had a more lasting impact on the landscape. In northern and interior New England, tribes were more mobile traveling by canoe rather than on foot, gathering food from rivers and the sea rather than agriculture, and rarely used fire.

Prior to European arrival, coastal southern New England likely supported a “shifting mosaic” of open land habitat (i.e. native heathlands, grasslands and shrublands, extensive wet meadows) within a forested landscape as a result of Native American land practices, periodic fires, beaver activity, and occasional hurricanes (Cronin 1983, DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001). DeGraaf and Yamasaki (2001) and Askins (2000) report broad evidence for the presence of extensive grasslands along the coast and major rivers in pre-European New England.

Pollen profile studies in nearby sites provide insight into the early vegetation (6,000-400 years ago) on Plum Island. Davis (1958) categorized Massachusetts into three dominant vegetation communities based on pollen profiles from bogs in central Massachusetts: oak-hemlock oak- hickory, and oak chestnut. Other dominant species included pine, black gum, ash, beech, hackberry, basswood, elm, and sugar maple. Ogden (1959) found similar vegetation patterns on Martha’s Vineyard, but noted the absence of chestnut pollen and a decrease in black gum and beech up to modern times.

18 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

II. BACKGROUND

Maritime influences, such as wind and salt spray, have always influenced the distribution of plants on Plum Island. The vegetation of the fore dunes, including beach grass, beach pea, seaside goldenrod, and beach heather, are thought to be unchanged since the Island’s formation. As the island dunes stabilized, trees and shrubs, such as pitch pine, bayberry, and beach plum became established. The development of extensive back dunes over time allowed less salt tolerant trees such as oaks, black gum, popular, and maples to become established. The earliest description of Plum Island dates back to 1614, when John Smith made the following observation:

“ On the east is an Island of two or three leagues in length, the one half plain marsh grass fit for pasture, with many high groves of mulberry trees and gardens, and there is also oaks, pines, and other woods to make this place an excellent habitation, being a good and safe harbor. ” (Smith 1837)

From this description, it appears that Plum Island was fairly well forested prior to European settlement. McDonnell (1972) suggested that the “mulberry groves” Smith referred to were in fact beach plums.

European Settlement When colonists landed on Massachusetts shores in the early 1600s they saw large clearings and open woodlands. Waterfowl, deer, grouse, turkey, and wild pigeons were abundant (Marchand 1987, Foss 1992, DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001). Colonists found old growth forests not far inland—mixed hardwoods, white pine and hemlock at low elevations and spruce and fir in the mountains (Marchand 1987). In northern New England native people and early Europeans didn’t utilize agriculture so the landscape remained blanketed in forest (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001).

Many writers point to the abundance of the heath hen in the mid 1600s, as recorded by 17 th century Bostonians, as a clear indication of an open, prairie-like landscape (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001). Foster and Motzkin (2003) discount the claims of heath hen abundance and preference for grassland habitats. The heath hen, a subspecies of the prairie chicken, was more likely a bird of open sandy woods and scrub oak barrens. European contact (e.g., explorers and traders) with native people began in the 16 th century in New England. Foster and Motzkin (2003) suggest that European arrival prompted such rapid and profound changes to the lifestyle and land use practices of indigenous people that by the time colonists began to settle here, the landscape was already changing quickly. Foster and Motzkin (2003) suggest that expansive clearing for agriculture and semi-permanent (rather than mobile) villages were a new phenomenon and resulted from European influence.

European colonists brought new land use concepts such as permanent settlements and political boundaries. They shifted land use from primarily subsistence farming and gathering to harvesting and export of natural resources (Foss 1992). Just 100 years after the colonists arrived, the forests were falling quickly to the axe. By 1830, central New England was 80% cleared. By some estimates, all commercial softwood was gone from the White Mountains by 1890 (Marchand 1987).

Even more quickly than the fall of the forest, the rough, rocky New England landscape was abandoned in the 1800s. The California gold rush, industrial revolution, new railroads, richer Midwestern soils, and the Civil War all contributed to the exodus. Abandoned farm fields began reverting back to forest. White pine seeded into the fields and pastures and by 1900 was ready for harvest (Marchand 1987, DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001). Between 1895 and 1925, 15 billion board feet of lumber was logged from central New England. An understory of hardwoods,

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 19 II. BACKGROUND

released from the shade of white pine, emerged as the new dominant vegetation, a legacy that remains today (Marchand 1987, DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001).

Human use of Plum Island in the last few centuries has greatly altered its natural landscape. Early colonists did not permanently settle Plum Island due to its inaccessibility, although they used the island for salt marsh haying, livestock grazing, and harvesting the plentiful waterfowl, shellfish, and fish (McDonnell 1979). Unrestricted use of the island so altered the vegetation that by 1679 the Town of Ipswich asked for removal of livestock from the island. In 1739, the Massachusetts General Court passed an Act prohibiting free roaming of livestock and setting fire to vegetation on the island (Waters 1918).

Settlement on the island, including summer homes, hotels, and farms, began after the construction of the Plum Island Turnpike and Bridge in 1806. Descriptions of the Island by Thoreau (1867) and Currier (1896) in the late 1800s suggest that settlement changed the island from a forested landscape to one of a few beach grasses and beach plums (McDonnell 1979). The establishment of the Annie Brown Wildlife Sanctuary at the south end of the Island in 1930 and the subsequent establishment of the Refuge curbed some destruction of the vegetation. Construction of boardwalks for beach access in the 1980s reduced the pressure of human activities in the fragile dunes and allowed for the recovery of vegetation to its present day composition.

Wildlife Changes Wildlife populations ebb and flow as habitat conditions vary in space and time. Natural and human disturbances intervene, shifting species abundance and diversity. Some species, such as alpine plants, have been here for 10,000 years or more, others, like the coyote, arrived in the last 75 years. Change is inevitable and natural, although human activities in the last 400 years have significantly altered the landscape compared to the previous 10,000 years when humans first colonized the Northeast (Foss 1992).

The 1800s witnessed the demise of many forest wildlife species from loss of habitat (forest clearing), bounty and market hunting, millinery trade, and natural history specimen collecting (Foster et al. 2002). Mountain lion, gray wolf, elk, and caribou were extirpated by the mid 1800s or early 1900s and have not re-colonized the region. Heath hen, passenger pigeon, great auk, Labrador duck, and sea mink became extinct at the hand of humans during the same period (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001, Foster et al. 2002). Hunting, egg collecting (for food and bait), and the millinery trade during the late 1800s decimated Arctic, common, and roseate tern populations in the Gulf of Maine (Drury 1973).

In contrast, grassland species such as eastern meadowlarks, bobolinks, upland sandpipers, woodchucks, and voles increased as hayfields and pastures expanded during the early 19 th century (Foss 1992, Foster and Motzkin 2003). Open land plant and animal species reached their peak abundance in the mid 1800s. The historical record is unclear on the abundance and distribution of these species prior to the surge in farming. Foster and Motzkin (2003) suggest that open land species were opportunistic, expanding into newly cleared lands from small, scattered populations in the pre-settlement era. Other species expanded their range into New England from the Midwest. DeGraaf and Yamasaki (2001) consider grassland and shrubland birds as specialists that occupied native grasslands and shrublands in the region prior to the massive land clearing.

After farm abandonment escalated in the early 1900s, grassland species ebbed, while species of thickets, brush lands, and young forests surged (Litvaitis 2003). Populations of black bear, bobcat, and broad-winged hawks increased. At the same time, intense logging followed by intense fires and heavy rains continued to wreck havoc on forest habitat and associated wildlife

20 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

II. BACKGROUND

species in northern New England. The legacy of this devastation is evident today. Many barren mountaintops below 3,800 feet and hardwood dominated hillsides are artifacts of early 20 th century land use (Foss 1992, DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001).

The open land habitats of colonial times are largely gone. In southern New England most of the native prairie (whatever the extent in pre-settlement times) is developed and wetlands are filled and isolated, diminishing the extent and dynamics of beaver flowages and meadows. The intensive agricultural period that kept land open is also over. The amount of timberland (i.e., forest cover) in northern New England has remained stable over the last 50 years at about 82% of the land area. Timberland in southern New England declined over the same period from 64% to 58% of total land area (Brooks 2003).

The young hardwood forests that emerged in the 1920s and 1930s, after the old-field pine harvests, provided premier habitat for early successional species, such as ruffed grouse (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001). The succession of that forest into mature hardwood forests in the late 1900s caused a decline in the grouse population but an increase in other species that prefer more mature forests. Abundances of early successional species declined to levels approaching pre-settlement levels (Litvaitis 2003).

DeGraaf and Yamasaki (2001) reported three major trends in New England’s wildlife: forest species are increasing (e.g., bear, beaver, deer, wild turkey, pileated woodpecker), grassland and shrubland species are declining (e.g., grasshopper sparrow, bobolink, upland sandpiper, whip- poor-will), and many southern species are expanding their ranges northward (e.g., glossy ibis, willet, Carolina wren, northern cardinal, mockingbird, Virginia opossum). A few species, such as raven, fisher, and moose are expanding southward. Eastern coyotes were first sighted in Massachusetts in the 1950s (Vermont and New Hampshire in the 1940s, northern Maine in the 1930s). A group of species remain regionally extirpated including wolverine, gray wolf, and mountain lion, while lynx have returned to northern Maine. Habitat loss and human development are contributing to the ongoing declines of a majority of grassland and shrubland birds. Remnant patches of these habitats are now embedded in a fragmented landscape conducive to generalist predators (Litvaitis 2003).

Humans have deliberately and inadvertently introduced many species that have had significant effects on native ecosystems. It took the chestnut blight only 50 years, once introduced, to eliminate the chestnut as a dominant tree across its range. Intentional introductions include ring- necked pheasant, red fox, and rock dove. Other introcutions, such as Norway rat, house sparrow, mute swan, and European starling have adapted well to human habitation after their arrival in the U.S.

The widespread use of DDT in the mid-twentieth century killed many songbirds and decimated populations of many birds of prey (Foss 1992). Discontinued use of these and other pesticides along with strong conservation efforts enabled many of these species to recover.

2.4 Climatic Influences and Natural and Anthropogenic Disturbances in New England

“It is said that nowhere else at the same latitude in the northern hemisphere is it as cold as in the Northeast, except perhaps in northeastern China and Hokkaido, Japan” (Marchand 1987). The reason for the region’s cold climate is partly a result of the pattern of atmospheric circulation in this hemisphere. Low-pressure systems all converge on New England regardless of their origin and pull cold Canadian air in behind as they pass over the Northeast (Marchand 1987). New England weather conditions are influenced more by the North American landmass than by the

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 21 II. BACKGROUND

Atlantic Ocean except along the coastline (Taylor et al. 1996). Forty to forty-five inches of precipitation fall about evenly throughout the year, although drought periods occur in some years (Patterson and Sassaman 1988).

Natural disturbances vary across New England, depending on geographic location, forest type, and local conditions. In presettlement times coastal regions experienced the highest rates of disturbance because of the prevalence of sandy pine-oak barrens, high densities of Native Americans, higher frequencies of hurricanes, and longer snow free periods. These disturbance regimes may have maintained about 1-3% of the inland northern hardwoods forests, >10% of the coastal pine-oak barrens, and perhaps 7% of spruce swamp and spruce flat habitats in early successional habitat (Lorimer and White 2003).

Native insects and disease, ice storms, droughts, floods, landslides, and avalanches have caused minor and major disturbances. For example, spruce budworm periodically affects millions of acres of spruce-fir forest in northern New England and southern Canada, and the 1998 ice storm damaged forests across 12 million acres in northern New England (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001). Lorimer and White (2003) depict hurricane frequencies as varying from 85 years in southeastern New England, 150 years through central Massachusetts and the southeast corner of New Hampshire, to 380 years or more in northern New England. Lorimer (1977) estimated catastrophic disturbances from fire and windthrow at intervals of 800 and 1,150 years, respectively.

Agriculture, logging, fire, windthrow, exotic pests and diseases, and development have significantly altered the New England landscape. Agriculture had the greatest effect on New England’s forests, causing major changes in cover types and soils over a wide area. Although most of the region’s forests were cut at least once, most logging did not affect succession or impact soils. Intense fires fueled by logging slash did have a lasting impact on forest vegetation patterns (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001).

2.5 Refuge Resources: Current Conditions

Climate The coastal climate of Plum Island is generally more moderate than that of just a few miles inland. The prevailing winds are from the west, at an average velocity of 10-13 miles per hour. The average temperature in Boston ranges from a low in January of 28.2 degrees F. to a high of 72.0 degrees F. in July. Average precipitation is 44.4 inches annually, with November and December receiving the most precipitation. Seasonal extreme high tides affect the refuge periodically. Hurricanes and Nor’easter storms can abruptly alter refuge habitats and physical features. Global warming has resulted in evidence of sea level rise in the Plum Island area. The climate on Thacher Island is similar to that of Plum Island. Its rocky character makes it less vulnerable to storm damage and sea level rise.

Soils The soils of Plum Island belong to the Ipswich-Westbrook-Udipsamment association (USDA- NRCS 2004). Ipswich soils occur in nearly level areas and are very poorly drained and subject to tidal flooding. Ipswich soils are associated with tidal marshes and can comprise organic deposits more than 51 inches thick. Westbrook soils are underlain by loamy mineral soil at a depth of 16 to 51 inches. Udipsamments soils consist of wind-deposited sand that are only partly stabilized by vegetation and are exteremely susceptible to scouring and wind erosion. Udipsamment soils are excessively drained and form gently sloping and very steep topography.

22 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

II. BACKGROUND

Hydrology Current management of the hydrologic processes on the Refuge is a combination of natural tidal influence and impoundment management. The creation of Refuge impoundments significantly altered and restricted hydrologic process that maintained healthy salt marsh habitat. Bill Forward and Stage Island Impoundments are managed to simulate a natural freshwater wetland habitat to benefit waterfowl and shorebirds. In 2000-2004, the Refuge investigated the feasibility of restoring the North Pool to salt marsh habitat (see Section 3.6 for details). Since 2004, we’ve been maintaining high water levels in the North Pool for breeding marsh and wading birds and waterfowl.

Natural tidal flow into the Refuge was altered when the bridge to Plum Island was reconstructed in the 1970s. Tidal flows through Joppa Flats and entering the Refuge from the north must pass under the relatively narrow bridge on the Plum Island Turnpike. Tidal flows from the Merrimack River to the north portion of Plum Island Sound are also restricted when the Plumbush Creek culvert was filled in the 1960s. Restricted tidal influence and reduced sediment transport has reshaped the marsh and reduced saltwater influence in this part of the Sound.

Environmental Contaminants The primary source of contamination on this Refuge is a 12-acre tract of land that was purchased for a new headquarters/visitor center. The site was an abandoned industrial landfill with documented Heavy metals, PCB’s, petroleum products and solvents present. It was designated a Superfund Site and subsequent remedial actions have mitigated the level of environmental and public health risks to a level of no significant risk.

A secondary source of contamination at Parker River NWR is in the Stage Island Pool. A survey of that impoundment found elevated levels of lead in the water and sediment. The lead level was attributed to waterfowl hunting on adjacent State land. Management action was taken to bury the lead shot to make it inaccessible to waterfowl. Hunting regulations outlawing lead shot have been in place for over 10 years.

The third area of concern for the Refuge is the estuary and the potential transport of contaminants to the Refuge from the Merrimack River. The area upstream of the Refuge is highly urbanized and the potential for point and non-point source inputs is significant. Overall the water quality of the estuary is good, although testing has revealed some nutrient loading and periodically elevated bacterial counts impacting tidal mudflats on the Refuge. These areas are closed to shell fishing when precipitation exceeds 0.5 inches over a 5-day period or over 1.0 inch over an 8-day period during the summer. Recent studies have found high levels of mercury (2.22 ppm) in salt marsh sparrows breeding in the salt marsh. Ongoing studies are attempting to trace the source of mercury contamination in the estuary.

The fourth area for concern is the 6.4 miles of beach along the Atlantic Ocean. Drums and containers with unknown contents periodically wash up onto the beach. Shipping lanes also lie offshore of the Refuge and the beach may become contaminated in the event of an oil spill. The predominant ocean current is north to south. This makes the beach susceptible to contaminant releases that may occur in the Merrimack River.

Natural Community Types The National Wildlife Refuge System adopted the National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS) developed by The Nature Conservancy and the Natural Heritage Network as its standard system for classifying vegetation communities. This classification system is based on hierarchical levels so that it can be used on the finest or coarsest level as needed. The finest level of

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 23 II. BACKGROUND

classification is Association, defined as “a plant community of definite floristic composition, uniform habitat conditions, and uniform physiognomy” (Comer et al. 2003). Table 2-1 listed NVCS Associations found at Parker River Refuge.

Table 2-1. National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS) Associations found at Parker River National Wildlife Refuge.

Common Names Association Pitch Pine Dune Woodland Pinus rigida/Hudsonia tomentosa Woodland Japanese Black Pine Forest Pinus thunbergiana Forest Prunus serotina-Sassafras albibum-Amelanchier Sucessional Maritime Forest canadensis/Smilax rotundifolia Shrubland Northern Bayberry Dune Shrubland Morella pensylvanica-Prunus maritima Shrubland Amelanchier canadensis-Viburnum spp.- Northern Tall Maritime Shrubland Morella pensylvanica Shrubland Cakile edentula spp. Edentula-Chamaesyce polygonifolia North Atlantic Upper Ocean Beach Sparse Vegetation Ammophila breviligulata- Lathyrus japonicus Northern Beachgrass Dune Herbaceous Vegetation North Atlantic Coastal Backdune (Morella penylvanica)/Schizachyrium littorale- Grassland Aristida tuberculosa Shrub Herbaceous Vegetation Northern Beach Heather Dune Hudsonia tomentosa-Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Shrubland Dwarf-Shrubland Vine Dune Smilax glauca-Toxicodendron radicans Vine-Shrubland Northern Interdunal Shrub Swale Myrica gale-Morella pensylvanica Saturated Shrubland Northern Interdunal Craneberry Swale Vaccinium marocarpon-Morella pensylvanica Dwarf Shrubland Highbush Blueberry Bog Thicket* Vaccinium corymbosum/Sphagnum spp. Shrubland Spartina alterniflora/(Ascophyllum nodosum) Acadian/ Spartina Low Salt Marsh Virginian Zone Herbaceous Vegetation Spartina patens-Distichlis spicata-(Juncus gerardii) Spartina High Salt Marsh Herbaceous Vegetation Baccharis halimifolia-Iva frutescens/Spartina patens Salt Shrub Shrubland Saltmeadow Cordgrass-Red Fescue Herbaceous Vegetation Spartina patens-Festuca rubra Herbaceous Vegetation Salt Panne Salicornia-Spartina laerniflora Herbaceous Vegetation Ruppia maritima-Schoenoplectus maritimus Salt Panne pool Herbaceous Vegetation Phragmites australis Eastern North America Eastern Reed Marsh Temperate Semi-Natural Herbaceous Vegetation Eastern Cattail Marsh Typha Eastern Herbaceous Vegetation

In 2004, the Fish and Wildlife Service contracted with the James W. Sewall Company to conduct aerial surveys and develop vegetation maps for a suite of Refuges including Parker River. Refuge staff combined mapping efforts from Sewall (2004), University of Massachusetts (2000), and National Wetland Inventory (1999) to produce a final vegetation map. Map 2-5 provides a graphic display of the location, size, and juxtaposition of the diverse habitats on the Refuge. Since wildlife typically respond to structural features, several natural community types or Associations are combined into habitat types that can be used to guide management objectives and prescriptions. These combined habitat types are used in the development of habitat objectives in Chapter 4. Table 2-2 shows the crosswalk between the habitat types and NVCS Associations.

24 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

II. BACKGROUND

Numerous botanists have studied the vegetation of Plum Island, with the most complete survey done by Mark McConnell of the University of New Hampshire for his Master’s Thesis (McConnell 1979). He identified 514 plant species from Plum Island. In 2004, the Refuge initiated an effort to re-inventory all plants on the Refuge. Appendix C includes a list of major habitats and dominant vegetation compiled from McConell’s work and recent survey efforts.

Table 2-2. Habitat Types by acres and crosswalk with NVCS Association Common names for Parker River National Wildlife Refuge.

Habitat Type Acres NVCS Association Common Name(s)

Sandy Beach & Rocky Shore 182 North Atlantic Upper Ocean Beach, Tidal Sand Beach* Northern Beachgrass Dune, Northern Beach Heather Dune Grasslands 540 Dune Shrubland, Vine Dune Successional Maritime Forest, Northern Bayberry Dune Maritime Shrubland & Forest 333 Shrubland, Northern Tall Maritime Shrubland, Vine Dune

Sandplain Grassland 24 North Atlantic Coastal Backdune Grassland

Northern Interdunal Shrub Swale, Northern Intedunal Interdunal Swale 48 Cranberry Swale, Highbush Blueberry Bog Thicket

Pitch Pine Dune Woodland 37 Pitch Pine Dune Woodland; Japanese Black Pine Forest Spartina Low Salt Marsh, Spartina High Salt Marsh, Salt Salt Marsh 2,660 Shrub, Saltmarsh Cordgrass-Red Fescue, Salt Panne, Salt Panne Pool Brackish Wetland 262 Eastern Reed Marsh, Eastern Cattail Marsh Impoundments

Grassland 130 Cultural Grassland* Tidal River, Bay, and Estuary 1,237 ------Nearshore Marine Open ------Water

*Habitat not represented in NVCS classification, which only covered natural, vegetated habitats.

Altered Habitats In addition to the natural community types found on barrier islands, several human altered habitat types are represented on Parker River NWR. After the establishment of the Refuge, staff created three brackish water impoundments, totaling 262 acres by constructing dikes around salt marsh habitats. North Pool, Bill Forward Pool, and Stage Island Pool were constructed to provide nesting waterfowl habitat. Since its construction, we’ve learned that the impoundments do not significantly contribute as nesting waterfowl habitat, but do provide good migratory and wintering habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds, and marsh and wading birds. In the past few years, marsh and wading birds have bred in the impoundments, particularly in the North Pool, where the staff has maintained high water levels since 2004.

The areas adjacent to the North Pool and Bill Forward Pool and the three drumlins on the Refuge (Nelson’s Island, Cross Farm, and Stage Island) were historically managed as goose browse fields. While we no longer manage habitats exclusively for Canada geese, these areas continue to

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 25 II. BACKGROUND

be managed as grassland habitats. In 1954, a prescribed fire in the North Pool impoundment jumped the road and burned considerable acreage in the dunes. To prevent erosion, the areas were planted in black pines ( Pinus nigra ), a non-native speices that is considered invasive by several New England states and is listed on the Top 100 Invasive Species by Invasive.org. Today, many of the pine dune woodlands are dominated by black pines. Additionally, while black pine seedling and saplings are common, there appears to be no recruitment of pitch pine seedlings.

Rare Plants and Exemplary Natural Communities Parker River NWR hosts several exemplary natural communities typical of coastal barrier islands. The majority of natural communities found at Parker River NWR, such as tidal salt marsh, dune grasslands, maritime shrubs, and beach strand communities, are ranked by Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program as S3 (Typically 21-100 occurrences, limited acreage in Massachusetts) or more rare. Rare (S1, typically 5 or fewer occurrences, very few remaining acres, or especially vulnerable to extirpation in Massachusetts) natural communities found at the Refuge include sandplain grassland, pitch pine dunes, interdunal swales, and brackish tidal marsh (Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program 2001).

Since its establishment, only a few botanical surveys have been conducted on the Refuge with documentation of several rare plants. Several populations of seabeach needlegrass ( Aristida tuberculosa) occur on the Refuge mostly associated with sandplain grasslands. Another State- listed species, dragon’s mouth ( Arethusa bulbosa ) was found in an interdunal swale on the Refuge in 1971. We surveyed for this plant in 2003, 2004, and 2005 and were not able to find any extant population. There are also old records of rare plants on the Refuge that haven’t been recently confirmed or surveyed. These include Rumex pallidus, Aristida longespica, Elymus villosus, Bolboschoenus movae-angliae, and Sporobolus compositus var. compoistus .

Wildlife Parker River National Wildlife Refuge was established primarily to provide feeding, resting, and nesting habitat for migratory birds. Located along the Atlantic Flyway, the refuge is of vital stopover significance to waterfowl, shorebirds, and songbirds during the spring and fall migratory periods. The refuge’s diverse upland and wetland habitats support varied and abundant populations of resident and migratory wildlife including more than 300 species of birds and additional species of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, insects, and plants.

Birds Parker River Refuge is noted as one of the best birding spots in the country with more than 350 species recorded. A diversity of bird species visit the Refuge year-round, many are of conservation concern. Piping plover and least tern arrive at the end of March to nest on the beaches. Raptors migrate through the Refuge in April and May, with high single-day counts of several hundred raptors. Waves of migrating songbirds, especially warblers, vireos, thrushes, and flycatchers pass through in May and again in late summer and early fall. Migrating shorebirds arrive on the Refuge in April and again from July to September for their southward migration. Some of the more common migrating shorebirds include black-bellied and semipalmated plovers, greater and lesser yellowlegs, semipalmated sandpiper, sanderling, least sandpiper, and short-billed dowitcher. The Refuge has the highest productivity of nesting purple martin in the State and attracts over 200,000 tree swallows during fall migration. In October and November, dabbling ducks feed in the impoundments and salt marsh and diving ducks congregate in deeper waters. Northern gannets are observed offshore mid-October through November. Wintering loons, grebes, red-breasted merganser, and sea

26 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

II. BACKGROUND

Map 2-5 National Vegetation Community System Mapping for Parker River NWR

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 27 II. BACKGROUND

28 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

II. BACKGROUND

ducks including common eider, white-winged and black scoters, and long-tailed ducks can be seen along the ocean side of the Refuge. Snowy owl, rough-legged hawk, and northern shrike are commonly observed on the Refuge in winter. Current bird sightings for the Refuge can be found at http://bartonstreet.com/tom/birds/pisightings.html (Wetmore 2006).

Thacher Island historically supported a large colony of nesting terns, with a record of 1,125 pairs of nesting arctic, common, and roseate terns in 1956. Nesting gulls have since displaced the tern colony. Strategically located between large tern colonies at Monomoy Island to the south and coastal islands of Maine to the north, Thacher Island has the potential to be reestablished as a tern nesting area.

Mammals No systematic inventory of mammalian species has been conducted at Parker River Refuge. In the 64 years since the Refuge’s establishment, however, Staff and researchers have documented numerous species, including Virginia opossum ( Didelphis virginiana ), masked shrew ( Sorex cinereus ), little brown bat ( Myotis lucifigus ), eastern cottontail ( Sylvilagus floridanus ), eastern chipmunk ( Tamias striatus ), woodchuck ( Marmota monax ), eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis ), red squirrel ( Sciurus vulgaris ), beaver ( Castor canadensis ), white-footed mouse ( Peromyscus leucopus ), meadow vole ( Microtus pennsylvanicus ), muskrat ( Ondatra zibethicus ), meadow jumping mouse ( Zapus hudsonius ), coyote (Canis latrans), red fox ( Vulpus vulpus ), raccoon ( Procyon lotor), fisher ( Martes pennanti ), long- tailed weasel ( Mustela frenata ), short-tailed weasel ( Mustela erminea ), mink ( Mustela vison ), river otter ( Lutra canadensis ), and striped skunk ( Mephitis mephitis ).

Marine mammals, such as harbor porpoise ( Phocoena phocoena ) and white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus ) can often be seen in the water off the Refuge beach. Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina ) and gray seals ( Halichoerus grypus ) commonly use the Refuge beach and salt marshes as haul out areas during winter months. Other seals using the Refuge include the harp seal ( Pagophilus groenlandicus ), the ringed seal ( Phoca hispida ), and the hooded seal (Cystophora cristata ).

In the winter of 2005-2006, the Refuge searched for presence of New England cottontail in advanced of its proposed listing under the Endangered Species Act. We searched potential New England cottontail habitat for lagomorphic signs (twig browsing, tracks, scat). Using mRNA analysis, scat collected from representative habitats were used to identify to species. All scats found during the survey were identified as eastern cottontail.

Reptiles and Amphibians The Refuge has been conducting frog-call surveys since 1999, and has documented eastern spadefoot toad ( Scaphiopus holbrookii ), spring peeper ( Pseudacris crucifer ), American toad (Bufo americanus ), fowler’s toad ( Bufo fowlerii ), bullfrog ( Rana catesbeiana ), and wood frog (Rana sylvatica ) breeding on the Refuge. The Refuge’s eastern spadefoot toad (a State-listed species) population is one of the more abundant and stable populations in the State. Interdunal swales provide the majority of breeding habitat for these species; however, vocalizations have also been documented in the impoundments when salinity is low during the breeding season. The Refuge has not conducted a systematic inventory for reptiles and other non-anuran amphibians; however, the following have been documented on the Refuge: snapping turtle ( Chelydra serpentina ), painted turtle ( Chrysemys picta ), ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus ), smooth green snake ( Liochlorophis vernalis ), brown snake ( Storeria dekayi ), common garter snake ( Thamnophis sirtalis ), and northern redback salamander (Plethodon cinereus ).

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 29 II. BACKGROUND

Fish The Refuge’s salt marsh and associated tidal flats are an important nursery for many fish species, providing the majority of prey fish for commercially important species. The most abundant fish species found in the salt marsh ecosystem (mainly pools and ditches) is mummichog ( Fundulus heteroclitus) . Other common species include: Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia ), three-spined stickleback ( Gasterosteus aculeatus , State-listed threatened), four-spined stickleback ( Apeltes quadracus ), nine-spined stickleback (Pungitius pungitius), and American eel ( Anguilla rostrata ), currently being considered for listing under the Endangered Species Act. In 2001, the Refuge conducted a fish sample in the three impoundments, and found mummichog to be the most common species. Other species included common sunfish ( Lepomis gibbosus ), grass shrimp (Palaeomonetes pugio ), and nine-spined stickleback. Carp have also been sighted in impoundments and salt marshes during extreme high tide.

The Plum Island Sound remains an important spawning, nursery and feeding area for many species of fish. The overall distribution of fish species in Plum Island Sound reflects differences in habitat conditions. The lower part of the Sound has mostly a sandy substrate. These areas tend to be dominated by Atlantic silversides and sand shrimp ( Crangon septemspinosa ), as well as mummichogs. The mud flats associated with salt marshes are also dominated by these three species and grass shrimp. The Parker River, which becomes increasingly brackish upriver, has a different assemblage, dominated by white perch and white fingered mud crab. Anadromous species, particularly "river herring" (alewives and blueback herring) were also frequently caught within the River. Abundant populations of mummichog, silversides, and sand shrimp inhabit the shoal areas and marsh creeks in the Sound. These areas are also used by winter flounder as a nursery habitat and seasonally by schools of young predatory striped bass and bluefish. Anadromous species, including rainbow smelt ( Osmerus mordax ), alewife ( Alosa pseudoharengus ) and blueback herring ( Alosa aestivalis ), spawn in the headwater streams and spend one or more phases of their life cycle in the estuarine environment (Buchsbaum et al .1998).

Long term sampling studies conducted in 1965 and in 1993/4 suggest that the fish species assemblage has changed in the last 40 years (Buchsbaum et al . 1998). Twenty-eight species of finfish were collected in 1965 at on and offshore sites in Plum Island Sound and the Parker River; 34 species were collected at similar sites in 1993/4 (Table 2-5). Species collected only in 1965 included spiny dogfish, Atlantic sturgeon, Atlantic cod, sea raven, longhorn sculpin, Atlantic wolffish, ocean pout, yellowtail flounder, and goosefish. Species caught only in 1994 included four species of herring, four freshwater species (golden shiner, banded killifish, yellow perch, and bluegill), brown trout, black-spotted stickleback, grubby, striped bass, bluefish, cunner, rock gunnel, and one species (moonfish) from southern waters. There was a large increase in the number of fish caught in 1993/4 compared to 1965. The change was due to a 5-fold increase in mummichogs and an 11-fold increase in Atlantic silversides, the two most common species in both studies. Two species apparently declined since 1968, three-spined stickleback and rainbow smelt. The reason for differences in the fish populations between the two studies are unknown but may be related to differences in physical factors (e.g., salinity, water temperatures, freshwater discharges), random fluctuations as part of a natural cycle, changes in estuarine habitat quality, historical use of pesticides to control mosquitoes, changes in regional fish populations (Buchsbaum et al .1998).

Commercial landings of alewives in Massachusetts peaked in 1958, then dropped dramatically in the late 1960's, a decline that continued through the 1990s. Dams have blocked the annual migration of alewives and other anadromous fish in the Plum Island

30 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

II. BACKGROUND

Sound basin for more than 300 years, although fishways built at some of the dams have aided passage (Buchsbaum et al .1998).

Table 2-3 Fish species collected at sampling sites in the Parker River-Plum Island Sound Estuary in 1965 and 1993/4 (excerpted from Buchsbaum et al. 1998).

Common Name Scientific Name 1965 1993/94 Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus X X American eel Anguilla rostrata X X American sand lance Ammodytes americanus X X American smelt Osmerus mordax X X Atlantic cod Gadus morhua X Atlantic herring Clupea harengus X Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus X Atlantic silversides Menidia menidia X X Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrhynchus X Atlantic tomcod Microgadus tomcod X X Atlantic wolfish Anarhichus lupus X Banded killifish Fundulus diaphanous X Black-spotted stickleback Gasterosteus wheatlandi X Blueback herring Alosa aestivalis X X Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix X Bluegill sunfish Lepomis macrochirus X Brown trout Salmo trutta X Cunner Tautogolabrus adspersus X Four-spined stickleback Apeltes quadricus X X Golden shiner Notemigonus chrysoleucus X Goosefish Lophius americanus X Grubby Myoxocephalus aenaeus X Hake Urophycis spp.. X X Little skate Raja erinacea X Longhorn sculpin Myoxocephalus X octodecemspinousus Lumpfish Cyclopterus lumpus X X Moonfish Vomer setapinnus X Mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus X X Nine-spined stickleback Pungitius pungitius X X Northern pipefish Syngnathus fuscus X X Ocean pout Macrozoarces americanus X Rock gunnel Pholis gunnellus X Sea raven Hemipterus americanus X Shad Alosa sapidissima X Skate species Raja spp. X Spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias X Striped bass Morone saxatilis X Thread herring Opisthonema oglinum X Three-spined stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus X X White perch Morone americanus X X Windowpane Scopthalmus aquosus X X Winter flounder Pleuronectes americanus X X Winter skate Raja ocellata X Yellow perch Perca flavescens X Yellowtail flounder Limanda ferruginea X

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 31 II. BACKGROUND

Invertebrates The soft shell clam ( Mya arenaria ) is the most important fishery in Plum Island Sound, with pollution, overharvesting, and predation the main concerns affecting the population. The clams live in the intertidal flats of estuaries, primarily in a sand and sand-silt mixture. Sand is found in areas exposed to strong tidal currents and wave action. Sandy muds occur in rivers, creeks, and areas where tidal currents are more restricted. Sand flats are thought to be generally less productive than mudflats. Predators of soft-shelled clams in the Sound include moon snails ( Polinices heros ), horseshoe crabs (Limulus polyphemus ), and green crabs (Carcinus maenus ), and historically local towns destroyed thousands of these animals in attempts to protect the clam population (Buchsbaum et al.1998).

Several species of larger marine invertebrates are commonly found in the tidal flats along with the soft shell clam. They include the blue mussel ( Mytilus edulis ), Ribbed mussel Geukensia demissa duck clam ( Macoma balthica ), false angel wing ( Petricola pholadiformis ), razor clam ( Ensis directus ), ribbed pod shell ( Siliqua costata ), northern moon snail, clam worm ( Nereis virens ), and bloodworm ( Glycera dibranchiate ). The most commonly caught macroinvertebrates in the Refuge’s salt marsh and tidal creek include grass shrimp, sand shrimp ( Crangon septemspinosa ), green crab, and horseshoe crab. The most commonly caught macroinvertebrates in Plum Island Sound were sand shrimp, grass shrimp, green crab, rock crab ( Cancer irroratus ), and white-fingered mud crab ( Rhithropanopeus harrissi ) (Buchsbaum et al .1998).

Common invertebrates using the beach intertidal zone include bay scallop (Argopecten irradiens), sea scallop ( Placopecten magellanicu), razor clam (Ensis directus), common periwinkle ( Littorina littorea ), dogwinkle ( Thais lapillus), New England dog whelk (Nassarius trivittatus ), Lagillerts whelk ( Volutopsius largillierti), Stimpsons whelk ( Colus stimpsoni ), horse mussel ( Modiolus modiolus), black clam ( Artica Islandica ), purplish tagelus (Tagelus divisus), and common oyster ( Crassostrea virinica).

The Refuge started an inventory of terrestrial invertebrates in 2004. To date, we’ve recorded over 100 species in 38 families and 10 orders. Additionally, staff and volunteers have compiled a list of dragonflies and butterflies for the Refuge (Appendix D).

Invasive Plants An "invasive species" is defined as a species that is 1) non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem under consideration and 2) whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health (Executive Order 13112). The Executive Order requires the National Invasive Species Council (Council) to produce a National Invasive Species Management Plan (Plan) every two years. In January 2001, the Council released the first Plan, which serves as a blueprint for all Federal action on invasive species. The Plan focuses on those non-native species that cause or may cause significant negative impacts and that do not provide an equivalent benefit to society. One report estimates the economic cost of invasive species in the U.S. at $137 billion every year (Pimentel et al. 2000).

Up to 46% of the plants and animals federally listed as endangered species have been negatively impacted by invasive species (Wilcove et al. 1998, National Invasive Species Council 2001). Invasive plant species is the number one threat to the Plum Island’s exemplary barrier island ecosystem.

Table 2-4. Invasive Species on Parker River National Wildlife Refuge and past control efforts

32 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

II. BACKGROUND

Invasive Species Scientific Name Control Efforts By the Refuge Asiatic Bittersweet Celastrus orbiculata Occasional cutting and spot treatment (Garlon) by the side of roads or trails. Elaeagnus umbellate In 2004 bulldozed all autumn olives mapped near Autumn Olive the main road; monitoring regrowth along road and

other disturbed areas; treat as needed. Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Girdle and treat (Garlon) stands starting in 2004.

Black Swallowwort Cynanchum louiseae None, only found at Cross-Farm Climbing Nightshade Solanum dulcamara None

Common Barberry Berberis vulgaris None

Glossy Buckthorn Frangula alnus Girdle and treat in sensitive habitats and where co- occurs with black locust control areas Japanese Barberry Berberis thunbergii None

Polygonum cuspidatum Currently not found on Refuge, but on Plum Island Japanese Knotweed (north and south of Refuge). Goal is to eradicate on Plum Island and turnpike. Repeated cutting; Stem- injection and spot treatment with Aquamaster. Leafy Spurge Euphorbia esula None; incidental mowing occurs during maintenance of main road and grasslands Morrow’s Honeysuckle Lonicera morrowii Herbicide treatment where co-occurs with black locust control area Multiflora Rose Rosa multiflora Spot treatment with Rodeo and Escort mix

Phragmites australis Chemical spray (aerial, ground), discing, mowing, Phragmites and flooding in impoundments. Targeted control (cut stem and drop) in interdunal swales and salt marshes. Lythrum salicaria From 1996-2000, Galerucella and Hylobius beetles were released in Bill Forward, North Pool, and Purple Loosestrife Stage Island Impoundments. The beetles are

effectively reducing the monotypic stands of loosestrife Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea None

Rugosa Rose Rosa rugosa Spot treatment with Rodeo and Escort mix

Rusty Willow Salix atrocinerea None; will experiment with treatments in 2007 (Also known as large gray willow, Salix cinerea ) Spotted Knapweed Centaurea maculosa Spot treatment with Garlon and hand pulling smaller infestation Lepidium latifolium Spot treatment with Escort and hand pulling. Tall Pepperweed Treating populations in Plum Island Sound for

watershed-wide control and eradication. White Poplar Populus alba None

Wild Garlic Allium vineale None

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 33 II. BACKGROUND

Invasive plant control has been implemented on the Refuge since the 1960s; however, efforts were mainly focused in the impoundments. In 2004, the Refuge completed a comprehensive map of all invasive plant species on Parker River Refuge. Twenty one non-native species considered to be invasive 1 were found at Parker River occupying approximately 380 acres (Table 2-6). Habitats most infested with invasive plants include the three Refuge impoundments, grassland habitats, and maritime shrub habitats. In 2004, we launched several different control project targeting invasive plants based on the following criteria: • Good likelihood of eradication • Provide educational and outreach opportunities to the public • Threaten plants, animals, and communities of management concern

In 2004, we started investigating various treatment methods to effectively control perennial pepperweed, Japanese knotweed, multi-flora rose, beach rose, spotted knapweed, Phragmites, glossy buckthorn, Japanese knotweed, Autumn olive and oriental bittersweet. The Refuge has since developed best management practices for many of these species.

Research and Monitoring

Open Marsh Water Management (OMWM) Open Marsh Water Management is a mosquito management technique used through the U.S., and was originally designed to reverse the wide-spread grid ditching that occurred at the turn of the century. OMWM involves restoring the waterways and salt pannes to allow predatory fish access to pools where mosquito larvae live. The Refuge has conducted OMWM since 1991 through a partnership with the Northeast Massachusetts Mosquito Control and Wetland Management District. So far, 100 acres were treated using OMWM. In 2001, the Fish and Wildlife Service initiated a region-wide long-term study to determine the effectiveness of OMWM to restore the ecological functions of the marsh, and how water levels, salinity, vegetation, mosquito, fish, and bird population respond to OMWM practices. We recently completed a 6-year study, and the data is currently being analyzed. Preliminary evaluation suggests that marsh recovery from any restoration attempts may take as long as 10 to 20 years and that we will need to continue monitoring both abiotic and biotic factors in the salt marshes to assess full effects of OMWM.

Salt Marsh Bio-Integrity Study In 2004, Parker River participated in a salt marsh sparrow mercury bioaccumulation study. Preliminary results of high mercury concentrations prompted a long-term study by the Contaminants Branch of the New England Field Office. The objectives of the mercury bioaccumulation study are: 1. Create a profile of Hg exposure in salt marsh sparrows on four national wildlife refuges based on blood and egg Hg levels 2. Identify potential Hg pathways through a detailed GIS analysis of know point sources and modeled air deposition patterns 3. Determine if Hg levels are high enough to negatively impact salt marsh sparrow reproductive success.

Samples from 2005 and 2006 have consistently found significantly elevated levels of mercury in salt marsh sharp-tailed sparrows at Parker River NWR compared to other sites in New England. Research will continue in 2007 to investigate how the elevated mercury is impacting productivity in sparrows. As funding allows, we will also investigate levels of mercury in other salt marsh

1 As identified by the New England Invasive Plant Group.

34 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

II. BACKGROUND

nesting birds (i.e. willets), levels of other contaminants in the salt marsh ecosystem, and try to pinpoint the source of contaminants.

Impoundment Shorebird Study In 2005, Parker River Refuge participated in the Region 3/ Region 5 Impoundment Shorebird Study. The objective of this three-year study is to determine how the timing of water manipulation (fall shorebird drawdown vs. spring shorebird drawdown) affects use of the impoundments by waterbirds, particularly shorebirds, waterfowl, and wading birds. The study will also investigate the capabilities of each refuge to contribute to regional goals for each guild of species, and response of the invertebrate and vegetative community to various management actions. In order to manage water levels in the impoundment more precisely, the Refuge installed new water level gauges set to absolute elevations in the Bill Forward and Stage Island Pools, and mapped the bottom contours of these two impoundments. The study will be completed in 2008.

White-tailed Deer Research and Management Plan In 1995, the Refuge began a long-term monitoring study of the impacts of the deer population on dune habitat and neotropical migrants. The goals of the project were: ° To refine and obtain relative indices to identify the threshold for a sustainable white- tailed deer herd on the Refuge ° To quantify the effects of white-tailed deer browsing on the shrubland vegetation community ° To identify neotropical and resident bird use during the breeding and migration seasons in shrubland habitat ° To collect biological data on the health of the deer herd from annual harvests

Preliminary data from 1998 and 2000 found no significant impact to vegetation or bird populations. The Refuge is currently re-evaluating the study to determine if the design is sufficiently powerful to detect change.

Wildlife Surveys The Refuge conducts several inventories annually to monitor wildlife use and make informed management decisions. These inventories can change from year to year based on data needs. Currently, annual surveys include breeding landbird survey, marsh and wading bird survey, frog call surveys, deer spotlighting survey, whip-poor-will survey, colonial nesting bird (terns) survey, mid-winter eagle survey, and grassland breeding bird survey. Additionally, Massachusetts Audubon Society has run a spring and fall migratory banding station in the shrub habitat on the Refuge since 1998.

Land Management Research Demonstration Area (LMRD) In 1999, the Fish and Wildlife Service launched the idea of a nationwide Land Management Research and Demonstration (LMRD) Program so that state-of-the-art land management techniques aimed at providing healthy habitats for fish, wildlife, and plants could be developed and implemented at participating National Wildlife Refuges. By 2005, five LMRD programs were established throughout the country including the Rachel Carson--Parker River LMRD. Each LMRD program was enacted on a competitive basis. Given the national concern about the threats to and importance of salt marsh, the Rachel Carson-Parker River LMRD proposal, with its focus on salt marsh and associated estuarine habitat, ranked first among 14 applications from around the nation. The LMRD Program seeks to bring specific innovations in estuarine habitat management and restoration to key audiences outside and within the Service through a variety of outreach methods including tours, workshops, collaborative research projects and publications. The staff for this estuarine LMRD is based at the Rachel Carson Refuge in Wells, Maine.

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 35 II. BACKGROUND

36 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

III. RESOURCES OF CONCERN

Chapter 3.

Resources of Concern ° Potential Resources of Concern ° Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health ° Priority Resources of Concern ° Priority Habitat Types and Associated Focal Species ° Conflicting Habitat Needs ° Adaptive Management

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 37 III. RESOURCES OF CONCERN

38 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

III. RESOURCES OF CONCERN

3.1 Introduction

Resources of concern are the primary focus of this Habitat Management Plan. The Service is entrusted by Congress to conserve and protect migratory birds, federally listed threatened and endangered species, inter-jurisdictional fishes, and certain marine mammals (i.e., “trust species”). In addition to this Service mission, each refuge has one or more purposes for which it was established that guide its management goals and objectives. Further, refuges support other elements of biological diversity including invertebrates, rare plants, unique natural communities, and ecological processes that contribute to biological integrity and environmental health at the refuge, ecosystem, and broader scales (USFWS 1999, 2003).

The Habitat Management Plan policy (620 FW 1) defines “resources of concern” as

“All plant and/or animal species, species groups, or communities specifically identified in Refuge purpose(s), System mission, or international, national, regional, State, or ecosystem conservation plans or acts. For example, waterfowl and shorebirds are a resource of concern on a Refuge whose purpose is to protect ‘migrating waterfowl and shorebirds.’ Federal or State threatened and endangered species on that same Refuge are also a resource of concern under terms of the respective endangered species acts.”

Given the multitude of purposes, mandates, policies, regional and national plans that can apply to a refuge, there is a need to identify the resources of concern and then prioritize those resources that the Refuge is best suited to focus on in its management objectives. The following is the process that Parker River used to identify priority resources of concern and develop habitat goals, objectives, and strategies to benefit these resources.

3.2 Resources of Concern

In collaboration with other refuges in New England as well as other stakeholders, we developed matrices of animal species (Appendix E) that are of local, state, regional, or national conservation concern based on numerous documents and other information sources. These documents, plans, or policies typically identify focal species, species groups, or habitats. To determine the resources of concern that would guide management priorities at Parker River and Thacher Island Refuges, we developed a subset of focal species based on existing and potential habitat, and regional population trends.

USFWS Trust Resources

Although the Refuge purposes are the first obligation, managing for trust resources (defined above) is also a priority for Refuges. Trust resources are further defined as follows:

Migratory Birds A list of all species of migratory birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703–711) and subject to the regulations on migratory birds is contained in subchapter B of title 50 CFR § 10.13. The Migratory Bird Program also maintains subsets of this list that provide priorities at the national, regional, and ecoregional (bird conservation region) scales. Since the list of all migratory birds that occur at Parker River is well over 300 bird species, we used a set of

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 39 III. RESOURCES OF CONCERN

existing plans and documents to develop a subset of potential migratory birds that Parker River would be best able to manage for. These sources of information included: • Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 30 , PIF Physiographic Area 9 • Continental and Regional Plans for landbirds, waterfowl, shorebirds, and marshbirds • Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory Species Assessment Database • USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern • Status and Trend Information from refuge bird surveys

Interjurisdictional Fish The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a responsibility to manage interjurisdictional fish, defined as those “…populations that two or more States, nations, or Native American tribal governments manage because of their geographic distribution or migratory patterns (710 FW 1.5H).” Examples include anadromous species of salmon, American eel, and free-roaming species endemic to large river systems, such as paddlefish and sturgeon (FWS Director’s Order No. 132, Section 6[c]).

A standard set of information resources is not currently available for fish. However, we used the best available information from the following sources: • USFWS Regional Fisheries Office • USFWS Gulf of Maine Coastal Program

Marine Mammals The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 13611407) prohibits, with certain exceptions, the take of marine mammals in U.S. waters and by U.S. citizens on the high seas, and the importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products into the U.S. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Office of Protected Resources is the lead federal agency in marine mammal protection. The Fish and Wildlife Service has responsibility for four marine mammals, but none in the North Atlantic. However, since Parker River is a coastal Refuge in the Gulf of Maine where many marine mammals are found including several species of seals, the Refuge considers the protection of their habitats (e.g., offshore marine open waters, haul out areas) an important consideration in overall Refuge management.

Wetlands Wetlands are vital for sustaining populations of fish and wildlife and are one of the Service’s conservation priorities for accomplishing its mission. Wetlands provide habitat for approximately one third of federally listed plants and animals, and nesting, migratory and wintering areas for more than 50 percent of the Nation’s migratory bird species (USFWS 1996). The Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, Public Law 99-645 (100 Stat. 3582), authorized the purchase of wetlands using the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It required the Secretary to establish a National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan and required the States to include wetlands in their Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans. Parker River’s marshes are included in the list of wetlands that warrant protection (USFWS Regional Wetlands Concept Plan, Emergency Wetlands Resources Act, October 1990).

Threatened and Endangered Species The Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544, December 28, 1973, as amended 1976- 1982, 1984 and 1988) designates the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as the responsible agency through which the Authority of the ESA will be carried out. Section 7(a)(1) of the Act futher requires all Federal agencies and departments to use their authority in furtherance of the purposes

40 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

III. RESOURCES OF CONCERN

of this Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species.

To identify federally threatened or endangered species of relevance to Parker River NWR we reviewed: • Federal Threatened and Endangered Species List • Recovery Plans for Federal-listed species in our region

Other Resources of Concern In addition to trust resources, the Service is charged by Congress to conserve other resources, such as Anadramous fish, marine mammals, and rare plants, animals, and communities. The 1997 Refuge Improvement Act also mandates Refuges to manage lands to

“…ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System are maintained.”

We drew these other resources of concern from the following lists and plans: • State Threatened and Endangered Species list • Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program’s rare plants, animals, and community list • Classification of Natural Community of Massachusetts • The Nature Conservancy Ecoregion Plans

3.3 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health

The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act states that in administering the System, the USFWS shall “… ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System are maintained…” (USFWS 2003). The Service (2003) defines these terms as:

Biological Diversity The variety of life and its processes, including the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences between them, and the communities and ecosystems in which they occur. Biological Integrity Biotic composition, structure, and functioning at genetic, organism, and community levels comparable with historic conditions, including the natural biological processes that shape genomes, organisms, and communities. Environmental Health Composition, structure, and functioning of soil, water, air, and other abiotic features comparable with historic conditions, including the natural abiotic processes that shape the environment.

In addition to providing habitat for trust species, refuges support other elements of biodiversity including invertebrates, rare plants, unique natural communities, and ecological processes (USFWS 1999). Where possible, Refuge management restores or mimics natural ecosystem processes or functions and thereby maintains biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health. Given the continually changing environmental conditions and landscape patterns of the past and present (e.g., rapid development, climate change, sea level rise), relying on natural processes is not always feasible nor always the best management strategy for conserving wildlife resources. Uncertainty about the future requires that the Refuge manage within a natural range of variability rather than emulating an arbitrary point in time. This maintains mechanisms that allow

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 41 III. RESOURCES OF CONCERN

species, genetic strains, and natural communities to evolve with changing conditions, rather than necessarily trying to maintain stability.

As stated by Meretsky et al. (2006), the Integrity Policy directs refuges to assess their importance across landscape scales and to “forge solutions to problems arising outside Refuge boundaries.” Some of these regional land use problems include habitat fragmentation/lack of connectivity, high levels of contaminants, and incompatible development or recreational activities.

To manage the Refuge within a natural range of variability derived from the historical and current physiographic information that provide indicators of the type of vegetation best suited to grow in a given location, we investigated the potential of the Parker River NWR to support the prioritized habitats by examining the following resources: • Maps and associated data on site capability o Kuchler’s (1964) potential natural vegetation o Soils, topography, and hydrology o History of natural disturbance patterns: e.g., storms, fire • Map of current landscape condition showing conserved lands network, connectivity, land use patterns, and management/ownership trends surrounding the Refuge • Map of existing vegetation on the Refuge, including distribution and abundance of invasive species • Regional/Global Environmental Trends o Climate Change o Water Quality • Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program information on rare, declining, or unique natural communities and plant populations • Massachusetts Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (a.k.a. Wildlife Action Plan) • Status and Trend Information from Refuge surveys and studies of sharp-tailed sparrows, waterfowl, shorebirds, breeding Neotropical landbirds, marsh and wading birds, piping plovers and least terns, rare plants, frogs and toads, vernal pools, and New England cottontail.

3.4 Priority Resources of Concern

The resources of concern table (Appendix E) contain a large number of species with a broad array of habitat needs. The Refuge needs to prioritize these species and their associated habitats to determine where the Refuge can make the greatest contribution to conservation efforts within the context of the NWR System, the surrounding landscape, and national priorities. To guide us in prioritizing this list, we considered the following concepts:

• Achieving Refuge purposes, and managing for trust resources as well as biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health can be addressed through the habitat requirements of "focal species" or species that may represent guilds that are highly associated with important attributes or conditions within habitat types. The use of focal species is particularly valuable when addressing Fish and Wildlife Service trust resources such as migratory birds.

• The Bird Conservation Region (BCR) plans are increasing their effectiveness at ranking and prioritizing those migratory birds most in need of management of conservation focus. Although all species that make it to a ranked BCR priority list are in need of conservation

42 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

III. RESOURCES OF CONCERN

attention, we selected focal species that were ranked high or moderate in continental concern with a high to moderate BCR responsibility.

• Non-bird focal species were selected due to range-wide concern over their population status or because they are currently under review for inclusion on the Federal Endangered and Threatened Species list, or because the State Wildlife and Natural Heritage Programs identified them as conservation priorities.

• Habitat conditions on or surrounding the Refuge may limit the Refuge’s capability to support or manage for a potential species of concern. The following site-specific factors were evaluated: o Patch size requirements o Habitat connectivity o Incompatibility of surrounding land uses o Environmental conditions: soils, hydrology, disturbance patterns, contaminants, predation, invasive species o Specific life history needs

• The likelihood that a species of concern would have a positive reaction to management strategies.

• The ability to rely on natural processes to maintain habitat conditions within a natural range of variability suitable to the focal species.

• The ability to use adaptive management (flexibility and responsiveness of the Refuge and the habitats) in the face of changing environmental conditions (e.g., climate change).

Table 3-1 is a list of the priority resources of concern (and their habitat) for Parker River NWR based on the information compiled and analyzed in this section. Priority resources of concern are synonymous with “conservation targets” and the terms can be used interchangeably. For rare plants and natural communities we were able to directly identify the priority resources since these are previously prioritized by TNC and the Natural Heritage Programs and are more site-specific than wildlife.

3.5 Priority Habitat Types and Associated Focal Species

Refuge management is most often focused on restoring, managing, or maintaining habitats or certain habitat conditions to benefit a suite of focal species or a suite of plants and animals associated with a particular habitat. Parker River identified the priority habitats and associated focal species (Table 3-2) on the Refuge based on the information compiled (e.g., site capability, historic condition, current vegetation, conservation needs of wildlife associates). As part of this process we identified any limiting factors that affect the ability of the Refuge to maintain these habitats. Since all management activities cannot be undertaken at the same time, we have prioritized the habitats (Table 3-3) based on the following ranking factors:

• Where would management actions provide the greatest conservation benefit to our priority species, • Current habitat condition and the urgency of the need for active management, and • Landscape level ranking of particular habitats

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 43 III. RESOURCES OF CONCERN

Although a habitat may be ranked as “moderate”priority, this should not be interpreted to mean that this habitat type does not provide valuable habitat to a variety of species and contribute to the overall diversity of the Refuge. In many cases, these habitats do not require active management by the Refuge or represent an area where we have little management capability.

Table 3-1. Priority Resources of Concern by Habitat for Parker River and Thacher Island National Wildlife Refuges

Habitat Species Parker River Thacher Island Black Skimmer B Black-bellied Plover M Sandy Beach birds Common Eider -- B

Common Tern B,M H (Rocky shore for Thacher Island) Least Tern B H Piping Plover B Purple Sandpiper M Red Knot M Roseate Tern M H Ruddy Turnstone M Sanderling M Semipalmated Sandpiper M Short-billed Dowitcher M plant Rumex pallidus (Seabeach dock) Y American Black Duck M,W,B birds Common Tern B,M Salt Marsh Black Rail B,M Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow B,M Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow B,M Seaside Sparrow B,M Semipalmated Sandpiper M Short-billed Dowitcher M Northern Harrier M,W Shorebirds M,B Marsh and wading birds (bittern, egret, heron, etc.) M fish American eel juv Three-spine stickleback M,W Bald Eagle M,W birds American Black Duck B,M Impoundments Short-billed dowitcher M Shorebirds M Northern Harrier B Marsh Wren B,M Breeding marsh birds (rails, bitterns, etc . . . ) B,M birds American Woodcock B Eastern Towhee B Scrub / Early Brown Thrasher B Successional Prarie Warbler B

44 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

III. RESOURCES OF CONCERN

(Maritime Dune Breeding landbird suite (Blue-winged Warbler, Palm Shrub) Warbler, Chestnut-sided Warbler, Olive-sided B Flycatcher, Whip-poor-will, Ruffed Grouse, Praire Warbler, Brown Thrasher, Towhee, Field Sparrow) Migratory landbird suite (Veery, gray catbird, magnolia warbler, black-throated blue warbler, American redstart, common yellowthroat, Canada M M warber, eastern towhee, swainson’s thrush, hermit thrush, yellow palm warbler, song sparrow, white- throated sparrow) Aristida tuberculosa (Seabeach needlegrass) Y Arethusa bulbosa (Dragon's mouth) H Liatrias scariosa var. novae-anglias P plants (New England blazing star) Agalini acuta (Sandplain gerardia) P Black-billed Cuckoo B,M Baltimore Oriole B,M Canada warbler B,M Maritime Forest Ovenbird B,M birds Whip-poor-will B,M

Wood Thrush B,M

Breeding landbird suite (American Redstart, Veery, Black-throated Blue Warbler, Eastern Wood-Pewee, B,M Rose-breasted Grosbeak, Scarlet Tanager, Baltimore Oriole) habitat Pitch Pine Forest Y Grasslands birds American Woodcock B Bobolink B Dunes birds Ipswich Savanah Sparrow W Northern Harrier B,M,W birds Black Duck M,W Estuarine and Bay Shorebirds M Marsh and wading birds (bittern, egret, heron, etc.) M fish American eel juv birds Black Scoter W W Common Eider W W Great Cormorant W,M W Marine open water Harbor Seal B W Gray Seal W W mammal Atlantic white-sided porpoise M,W M,W Harbor Porpoise M,W M,W

B=breeding, M= Migratory; W=Wintering, Y=Year round, P= Not confirmed on Refuge, but has suitable habitat, and found in adjacent area; Historic= Records prior to 1980; juv= Nursery habitat

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 45 III. RESOURCES OF CONCERN

Table 3-2 Focal species and associated habitat requirements and other species benefiting from habitat management at Parker River NWR.

Focal Species Habitat Type Habitat – Vegetation Structure Other Benefiting Species

Nest above the high tide line on open sand, gravel or shell- covered beaches, especially on sand spits and blowout areas in Piping plover Migrating shorebirds (e.g., the dunes. Feed in the “splash zone” and in wrack piles at the black-bellied and high tide line. semipalmated plover, red Nest on open sand, gravel, or shell-covered beaches above the Least tern Sandy beach, knot, ruddy turnstone, rocky shore, high tide line semipalmated sandpiper, and dune Migration: hard-backed sandy beaches, foraging along buff-breasted sandpiper, Sanderling grasslands incoming tide whimbrel; foraging northern harrier; migrating Overwinter in the dune grassland feeding on small seeds, fruits, American kestrel, peregrine Ipswich savannah and insects falcon sparrow Nest almost exclusively in salt marsh; Females wedge or Saltmarsh sharp- suspend a nest in medium high cordgrass just above the tailed sparrow substrate or water near the mean high-tide line Nest in marshes with expanses of medium-high cordgrass with Nelson’s sharp-tailed a turf of clumped, residual stems. Especially suitable are spots Seaside sparrow sparrow, black rail, clapper not subject to extreme flooding that have open muddy areas for rail, greater yellowlegs, Salt marsh feeding (Post and Greenlaw 1994). short-billed dowitcher, Migration and wintering habitat. Spring migrants are abundant snowy egret, willet, along Atlantic Coast in salt marsh bays before ice-out. In New northern harrier England uses tidal habitats exclusively in winter. Salt marsh American black duck and tidal habitats in mid-Atlantic region are essential habitats and used especially at night and when ice forms (Longcore et al. 2000) Breeds in vernal pools; rest of year in sandy or loose soils in Eastern spadefoot sparse shrub or tree growth and sparse leaf litter; nocturnal; toad Interdunal fossorial Rare Lepidoptera and swale Open peaty wetlands, bogs, boggy meadows, and interdunal beetles, breeding Dragon’s mouth swales, usually co-occuring with cranberry, sphagnum moss, amphibians (Arethusa bulbosa) 2 sundews, Rosa pogonia, sedges, and shrubs. Prefers open, early successional habitats.

46 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

III. RESOURCES OF CONCERN

Seabeach Stable dunes in early stages of succession. Associated species needlegrass ( Aristida include Hudsonia tomentosa, Polygonella articulate, tuberculosa) Danthonia spicata, Juncus greenei , and lichen. New England Dry, sandy open areas with acidic, low nutrient soils. blazing star Associated species include Schizachyrium scoparium, Carex (Liatris scariosa var. Sandplain pensylvanica, and Aster linariifolius. Ipswich savannah sparrow; novae-angliae) 1 grassland rare lepidotera and beetles Dry, sandy open areas of coastal plain. Acidic, low-nutrient soils with considerable patches of lichen and bare sandy soil. Sandplain gerardia Associated species include Schizachyrium scoparium, (Agalinis acuta) 1 Arctostaphylos uva-ursi, Danthonia spicata, Vaccinium angustifolium, and Aster linariifolius. Shallow (<15 cm water depth) to mudflat habitat with sparse to Short-billed no vegetation (<15% cover), at the time of peak shorebird Semipalmated sandpiper, dowitcher migration (late May and mid August). greater yellowlegs, black- Shallow flooded (<12” water depth) seed producing moist soil bellied plover, gadwall, Impoundments American black duck vegetation ( Cyperus , Echinochloa , Polygonum , Bidens ) during green-winged teal, king peak migration (late Oct). rail, American bittern, least Dense (>80%) robust vegetation (cattail, burreed) with shallow bittern, Marsh Wren flooding during breeding season Colonial nester, almost exclusively on islands (Gochfeld et al. 1998). Nest typically sheltered by tall, rank vegetation or Common tern Roseate tern Thacher Island structure (<30% visibility from above). May nest under debris Arctic tern or rocks. Dense, brushy dry areas, pitch pine-scrub oak forests, utility Eastern towhee rights-of-way; nests on or near ground; well-developed litter layer Dry thickets, brushy areas, power-line rights-of-way, roadsides, Brown thrasher forest edges; Low, dense, woody vegetation Willow flycatcher, blue- winged warbler, American Maritime woodcock, eastern shrubland and Dry, upland, open habitat with little undergrowth; Abundant in kingbird, whip-poor-will; forest pitch pine-scrub oak woodland; Need singing perches; Nest Prairie warbler usually well-hidden in fork of a shrub or sapling. migrating songbirds; New England cottontail

Nests in tall deciduous tree (~35 to 90 feet) in semi-open Baltimore oriole habitat – at woodland edges or open areas with scattered trees (Rising and Flood 1998)

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 47 III. RESOURCES OF CONCERN

Nests in old fields in early stages of succession—open grassy Field sparrow areas with scattered low shrubs or trees. Nests on or near the ground in a tuft of grass (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001) American woodcock, northern harrier, whimbrel, Nests in deciduous trees in open habitats, often in hawthorn or Eastern kingbird Grassland pollinating insects, apple; perches for aerial feeding monarchs, eastern meadowlark Requires a minimum of 5-10 acres; Nests in mixed grass (8- Bobolink 12”) fields with tall forbs and scattered shrubs; nest on the ground often at the base of large forbs Catadromous: lives in freshwater, spawns in ocean; matures in Tidal rivers, estuaries and salt marshes; feeding on insects, mollusks, Atlantic brant, blueback American eel bays, and crustaceans and other fish herring, three-spine estuary stickleback

Winters in open coastal areas; feed almost exclusively by Red-breasted merganser, Nearshore diving, generally feeding at or near the bottom; mollusks, White-winged and common loon, surf scoter, Marine Open especially blue mussels, and crustaceans are important foods; black scoters common eider, bufflehead, Water require areas that are unspoiled by contaminants-vulnerable to harbor porpoise oil spills (Brown and Fredrickson 1997)

1 Plant not currently found on Refuge, but has suitable habitat. Potential for reintroduction 2 Historical record, last seen in the 1970s.

48 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

III. RESOURCES OF CONCERN

Table 3-3. Priority habitats and potential limiting factors for maintaining these habitats on Parker River National Wildlife Refuge. Habitat Type Reasons for Ranking Limiting Factors/Threats

Highest Priority Habitats Presence of nesting federal-listed species; Human disturbance; storms; sea Sandy Beach, Rocky Importance to fall migrating shorebirds level change Shore, Dune including highest priority species in BCR 30; Grassland Active management results in positive, measurable impact on trust resources Salt marsh habitat is limited; high potential for Diking and draining; altered greatest Refuge contribution; Presence of hydrology; invasive species; sea several highest priority birds in BCR 30 level change; mercury (saltmarsh sharp-tailed sparrow, seaside contamination; human disturbance Salt Marsh sparrow, and black duck); At 2,660 acres, it is the largest habitat type on the Refuge and part of Great Marsh, the largest contiguous salt marsh north of Long Island A rare (S1) natural community in Coastal storms; sea level change; Massachusetts; Host locally rare plants and human disturbance/recreation; Interdunal Swale vernal pool species; The only freshwater invasive species habitat on the Refuge A rare (S1) natural community in Recreation; invasive plants; Massachusetts; Host rare plants state succession; requires periodic Sandplain Grassland threatened seabeach needlegrass; This natural disturbance community type is known to support rare moths and beetles Supports many high priority breeding wading Requires intensive management and, marsh, waterfowl, and migrating and maintenance; invasive plants; Brackish Marsh - shorebirds in BCR 30; wetlands are a trust water quality issues (e.g., salinity Impoundments resource; meets original purpose of Refuge levels) establishment Historically supported larege colony of Human disturbance; high gull Thacher Island common, arctic, and roseate terns. population; availability of fish as prey Medium Priority Habitats Many high priority bird species in BCR 30 in Succession; lack of disturbance; Maritime Shrubland this habitat; potential habitat for New England invasive plants and Forest cottontail; important for fall migrating songbirds; but requires little management Supports uncommon plant species, but the Succession; lack of disturbance; Pitch Pine Dune Refuge contains only a small portion of this invasive plants Woodlands community type Cultural habitat type that supports nesting Succession, requires regular bobolinks, monarchs and other pollinating mowing or other treatments; Grasslands insects, foraging raptors, and migrating birds; invasive plants wildlife viewing opportunities State has primary jurisdiction and lack of Contaminants; sea level change; Tidal River, management capability invasive species; aquaculture Estuarine and Bay development State has primary jurisdiction and lack of Mercury and other contaminants; Nearshore Marine management capability commercial and recreational Open Water fishing and other uses

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 49 III. RESOURCES OF CONCERN

3.6 Conflicting Habitat Needs

Given the diversity of goals, purposes, and mandates for the NWRS, it is not uncommon to have conflicts over management priorities on a Refuge. Balancing the types and proportions of habitat conditions on the Refuge requires a thoughtful and documented process for determining the best course of action. Parker River NWR has several management decisions that require such an approach.

Impoundment Management The 114-acre North Pool Impoundment is an area that the Refuge has spent considerable time and resources on to determine the appropriate management. The North Pool impoundment was created in 1950 when a 1.5 mile dike was constructed around salt marsh to create freshwater breeding habitat for waterfowl. Maintaining the impoundment as a freshwater system has been a persistent struggle because of saltwater seepage, creating a brackish environment. In the past 50 years, the lack of a freshwater source and inability to manage water levels in the impoundment created conditions conducive to invasive plants including Phragmites and purple loosestrife. Past management techniques used to control invasive plants included mowing, burning, disking, flooding, chemical spray, planting of desirable plants, and release of biological control agents for purple loosestrife. Despite these efforts, the impoundment exhibits very low plant diversity and is dominated by invasive plants.

In response to concerns of habitat degradation in North Pool, the Refuge investigated alternative management options in the 1990s, including securing a source of freshwater for water level management, installing a water control structure to Plum Island Sound for brackish marsh management, creating ditches to improve water circulation, and creating sub-impoundments within the North Pool. Most of these alternatives were found infeasible (see Appendix F); and a water control structure and circulation ditches were created to increase water circulation in the impoundment; however, neither strategy significantly improve management capability in the impoundment.

In 2000, at the advice of the Great Marsh Restoration Team and a wetland management expert, Leigh Frederickson, the Refuge initiated a study to explore restoration alternatives for the North Pool. Through a partnership with the State’s Wetland Restoration Program, Normandeau Associates were contracted to collect baseline ecological data, including elevation, tidal prism, salinity regime, vegetation and wildlife use. Louis Berger, Inc. were contracted to explore various restoration alternatives and to develop hydrological models to predict both restoration feasibility and potential impacts to the adjacent Hellcat swamp. Finally, Konisky (2004) used the hydrological models, existing vegetative composition, and interspecific competition to predict the response of marsh vegetation to various restoration scenarios.

The restoration study found that the North Pool had subsided a foot since being impounded, and the existing water control structure allows little tidal exchange between the pool and surrounding marsh. The hydrological and vegetative models predict that restoration is feasible by (1) expanding the existing 5-foot water control structure to a 16 foot structure (or twin 8 foots), or by breeching the dike (30-foot wide trapezoidal opening).

In 2004, as the Refuge was concluding the four-year feasibility study, birders reported breeding marsh and wading birds using the North Pool. While restoration of the North Pool would improve biological integrity, minimize need for management, and control invasive plants, it would negatively impact marsh and wading birds utilizing the North Pool as breeding habitat. At

50 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

III. RESOURCES OF CONCERN

the urging of the birding community, the Refuge has postponed a decision on whether to restore the North Pool in order to collect additional information on breeding marsh and wading birds. Call back surveys in the North Pool from 2004 to 2006 have documented presence of several species, including Virginia rail, sora rail, marsh wren, least bittern (State endangered), American bittern (State endangered), common moorhen (State species of concern) and king rails (State threatened). While many of these marsh and wading birds are species of concern in Massachusetts, they are not listed (with the exception of marsh wren) as priority species of conservation for BCR 30. Refuges use conservation priority established in the BCR system as it encompasses a range-wide conservation strategy, identifying priorities on an ecoregional scale while ensuring that all birds are conserved on a Continental scale. Many of the State-listed species breeding in the North Pool have their breeding range centered in the Great Lakes, Midwest and Gulf Coast regions, where they are listed as BCR high priority species and where management would provide the greatest benefit to their conservation. The restoration of the North Pool will be revisited during the Comprehensive Conservation Planning process, scheduled to begin in 2009.

Conflicting habitat needs also arise in the Bill Forward and Stage Island Pools where the Refuge is simultaneously managing for shorebirds, waterfowl, and breeding marsh and wading birds while striving to minimize invasive plant species. Shorebirds and waterfowl require mudflats and sparse vegetation whereas breeding marsh birds require dense tall vegetation (cattail). Whenever possible, Refuge staff maximizes habitat use by all bird groups, but has to prioritize which groups to manage for in any given year.

Grassland Management Another area where the Refuge has to resolve conflicting habitat needs is grassland management. Parker River currently manages six grassland units and three dikes through annual mowing, totaling 130 acres. Additionally, the Bill Forward Shrub area is maintained as early successional shrub through mowing every three to five years. These grassland units are old goose-browse fields or abandoned farm fields that currently provide nesting habitat for bobolink, savannah sparrow, and an occasional eastern meadowlark. There is much debate among conservationists and land managers on the importance and historical prevalence of grassland habitat in the northeast (see Objective 2.2 in Chapter 4 for further information).

The grassland units at Parker River are too small to support grassland breeding species of regional concern (e.g., upland sandpiper, Henslow’s sparrow, grasshopper sparrow); however, existing grasslands do provide important breeding habitat for bobolinks and savannah sparrows, areas for pollinating insects, and provide wildlife viewing opportunities for the visiting public. Older fields with patches of shrubs can provide nesting, foraging, or resting areas for field sparrow, eastern kingbird, woodcock, and whimbrel, among other high priority bird species. In 2006, the Refuge completed site capability (soils, current vegetation composition, etc.) evaluations of six grassland units to evaluate whether the fields would be better managed as fields or other habitats. For the summary of findings, see Chapter 4, Objective 2.2.

Biological Integrity vs. Wildlife Habitat Needs National Wildlife Refuges are directed by Congress to manage for biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System. In most instances, such management also benefits our trust resources. Occasionally, this directive conflicts with short-term wildlife needs. An example of this is the need to provide optimal habitat for breeding and migratory landbirds while maintaining the long-term ecological integrity of maritime shrubs. Landbirds have a higher survival rate in thick shrub habitat, as it provides escape cover from potential predators (Randy Dettmers, personal communication, USFWS 2006). Currently, the invasive shrubs Morrow’s

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 51 III. RESOURCES OF CONCERN

honeysuckle and glossy buckthorn provide the high-density structure preferred by these wildlife species of conservation concern. While we have to implement some control of the invasive shrubs to ensure that they don’t further degrade the shrub habitat, we must proceed carefully to ensure that landbirds are not negatively impacted by monitoring response of native shrub habitat.

3.7 Adaptive Management

The priority resources of concern and their respective habitat attributes were used to develop specific habitat objectives. Refuge habitat management objectives must be achievable. Many factors, such as lack of resources, existing habitat conditions, species response to habitat manipulations, climatic changes, contaminants or invasive species, may reduce or eliminate the ability of the Refuge to achieve objectives. Although these limiting factors were considered during the development of Refuge objectives, conditions may and are likely to change over the next 15 years and beyond.

The Refuge will use adaptive management to respond to changing conditions that affect our ability to measure and achieve the habitat objectives. This requires that we establish and maintain a monitoring program to ensure that we can detect and respond to changing conditions.

52 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

III. RESOURCES OF CONCERN

Chapter 4 .

Habitat Goals and Objectives Barrier Beach Ecosystem and Estuarine Communities ° Piping Plover and Least Terns ° Sandy Beach, Rocky Shore and Dune Grasslands ° Maritime Shrubland and Forest ° Exemplary Plant Communities ° Salt Marsh ° Tidal River, Bay and Estuary ° Nearshore Marine Open Water

Human Modified Habitats ° Brackish Wetland/Impoundments ° Grassland ° Artificial nesting habitats

Thacher Island ° Tern Restoration

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 53 III. RESOURCES OF CONCERN

54 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

V. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND PRESCRIPTIONS

The goals and objectives identified in this chapter were developed through collaboration among managers and biologists from refuges throughout the Bird Conservation Region 30 area. The goals were written broadly so that it can be incorporated into the Comprehensive Conservation Plan, scheduled to begin in 2009. These goals and objectives will be re-evaluated during the CCP process with additional public involvement. To develop habitat objectives, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of habitat requirements for each priority resources of concern (Table 3-2). To facilitate management, all priority resources of concern were grouped in habitat types, and we further investigated limiting factors and threats for each habitat type (Table 2-3). Using the SMART criteria, habitat objectives were then developed to provide the desired habitat conditions required by the priority resources of concern. The SMART criteria are required in the habitat management planning guidelines, and stands for: Specific (who, what, when, where and why); Measurable; Achievable; Result-oriented; and Time-fixed. The rationale section for each habitat objectives summarizes the scientific information, expert opinion and professional judgment used to formulate each objective.

GOAL 1 Perpetuate the biological integrity and diversity of coastal habitats to sustain native wildlife and plant communities, including species of conservation concern.

Objective 1.1 (Beach, Rocky Shore and Dune Grasslands-Piping Plover and Least Tern) Work cooperatively with State (Sandy Point State Reservation) and local towns (Newburyport and Newbury) to protect from disturbance and degradation nine miles of nesting, staging, and foraging habitat for piping plovers and least terns. Through seasonal closures, predator management, and public education, maintain a minimum productivity of 1.5 chicks per nesting pair over a five-year period for piping plovers and a nesting least tern colony of 50-100 pairs.

Rationale The piping plover is a Federal and State-listed threatened species. Massachusetts supports the second largest population of breeding piping plovers along the Atlantic Coast. Thirteen to 26 pairs of plovers nest on Plum Island, including Parker River Refuge, Newburyport Town Beach, and Sandy Point State Reservation. Plovers return to Plum Island in late March or early April and begin establishing nesting territories. Their nesting season spans from late March through mid-August. Plovers forage along the waterline, on the mudflats, and among the wrack line (MNHESP 1990).

Habitat loss from development has decimated the piping plover along the Atlantic Coast. Predation on eggs and chicks by fox, skunk, raccoon, and other predators is increasing, while ORV users and other beach goers impede foraging or accidentally crush the cryptic plover eggs or chicks. Protection of critical habitat from development and restricting recreational use in plover nesting areas is essential to maintaining healthy piping plover populations (MNHESP 1990). Piping plover management on the Refuge began in 1986 following Federal listing of the species. Although detailed records were not kept prior to 1986, the first record is of two pairs attempting to nest in 1980. In subsequent years, two to five nests were recorded on the Refuge beach. In 1990, the Refuge closed the entire beach to public use during the breeding season. The birds responded with a dramatic increase in the number of breeding pairs (peak of 22 pairs in 1996).

The piping plover recovery plan has a recovery objective of 1.5 chicks per pair on average over five years (USFWS 1996). The average piping plover productivity since 1991 when the entire Refuge beach was closed to all public use activities has averaged 1.49, just slightly below the recommended productivity objective of 1.5.

The least tern is a species of special concern in Massachusetts. In the late 1800s the least tern was a common bird in Massachusetts but was decimated at the turn of the century by the millinery trade, then started to recover, and now faces threats from development, predation, and beach use. The

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 55 V. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND PRESCRIPTIONS

Refuge supports approximately 100 breeding pairs at the north end. Least terns nest on beaches and sandbars with a mix of sand, pebbles and shells, and lacking in vegetation. The birds arrive at the Refuge in early May. A high percentage of nests and eggs are lost each year to overwash from high tides and storm surges. Eggs and chicks suffer high predation from avian and mammalian predators including crows, gulls, raptors, coyotes, red fox, skunk and raccoon.

Objective 1.2 ( Beach, Rocky Shore and Dune Grasslands) Annually, maintain 182 acres of sandy beach and rocky shore and 540 acres of dune grassland habitat to benefit migrating shorebirds (e.g., sanderling and red knot) and nesting piping plover and least tern by regulating and directing public use to less sensitive areas (away from wrack line and nesting areas) and times (after nesting and migration seasons and away from roost sites) in the beach ecosystem.

Rationale Sandy beach, rocky shore, and dune grassland habitats are important to many southward migrating shorebirds as refueling stops before continuing their long travels to wintering areas (Helmers 1992). During mid to late August, thousands of shorebirds use the Refuge beach as a migratory stopover, including sanderling and ruddy turnstone (highest priority species in BCR 30), semipalmated sandpiper and black-bellied plover (high priority species in BCR 30), and semipalmated plover (medium priority species in BCR 30) (Steincamp 2006, draft). The Refuge and the surrounding Great Marsh was designated a Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve in 2004. The dune grassland (also called foredune) and sandy beach also provide critical breeding habitat for piping plover and least tern, which are discussed further under Objective 1.2.

The Ipswich savanna sparrow is a subspecies of the savanna sparrow that breeds on Sable Island, Nova Scotia and winters along the Atlantic Coast from Massachusetts south to Georgia (Wheelwright and Rising 1993). These sparrows over-winter in the dune grassland on the Refuge, likely foraging on small seeds, fruits, and insects. The numbers of birds using the Refuge is unknown. This subspecies is identified as a medium priority in BCR 30 because of the regional importance of the BCR to their population (Steincamp 2006, draft).

Other species use these habitats, especially for foraging during migration, and benefit from habitat protection and management actions proposed for the focal species. Several raptors migrate along the coast in large numbers including American kestrel, peregrine falcon, and northern harrier, all listed as species of conservation concern in Massachusetts (MDFW 2005). The dune habitat also supports a diverse group of native insects and pollinators.

Parker River is a high public use Refuge with over 250,000 visitors annually. These beach habitats are also popular with Refuge visitors and beach-goers, often during the same times that the birds are nesting, foraging, or resting during migrating. Beach-related activities include swimming, sunbathing, surfing, beachcombing, and fishing. A disturbance study conducted on the Refuge beach in 1996 found shorebirds using the beach were disturbed by visitors as many of eight times an hour (Harrington and Drilling 1996). The Refuge beach south of Lot 1 is closed to all public use during the plover nesting season (April 1 to mid-July/August). The small section of beach north of Lot 1 is open to public use year-round. Surf fishing is hugely popular and is permitted 24-hours a day when the beach is open. Off-road vehicle (ORV) use is allowed by permit to access fishing sites from September 1 to October 31.

A study on the effects of ORVs on the beach ecosystem hasn’t been done on Plum Island, however studies from other sites have documented effects on biological and physical processes. Off-road vehicles may run over the organic drift lines (wrack), breaking up and dispersing organic matter, and causing the sand to dry out and lose nutrients. Bacteria that play a vital role in decomposition of

56 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

V. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND PRESCRIPTIONS

organic matter are 1,000 times more abundant within the high tide wrack line than in the bare beach sand. Godfrey and Godfrey (1980) found that ORVs reduced the amount of bacteria by 50% and the amount of diatoms by 90%. Steinback et al. (in press) documented a significantly lower abundance of invertebrates and less wrack on beaches with ORV use. Organisms living in the wrack are important food sources for migrating shorebirds. Harrington and Drilling (1996) found that vehicle use on beaches disturbs roosting shorebirds more than pedestrian activity. If ORV use reduces food resources in the wrack and disturbs resting shorebirds, contributing to lower weight shorebirds, then these birds are less likely to successfully complete their long-distance migrations (Harrington and Drilling 1996). The North American shorebird plan identified protection of food resources and minimizing human disturbance as high priority management objectives (Clark and Niles 2003).

Objective 1.3 Maritime Shrubland and Forest Manage 333 acres of maritime shrubland and forest to provide nesting and migratory stopover habitat for landbirds of conservation concern including eastern towhee, brown thrasher, prairie warbler, Baltimore oriole and eastern kingbird, and also to benefit the New England cottontail. Specific management objectives are:

1. Annually, maintain the existing maritime shrubland/forest patches (~40 acres total) that currently have less than 5% invasive plants to provide nesting areas for Baltimore oriole, eastern kingbird, and other songbirds

2. By 2021, increase native maritime shrub and forest communities (dominated by native fruit- bearing shrubs and trees, including shadbush, black cherry, arrowwood, beach plum, bayberry, and elderberry and comprising less than 5% invasive plants) to 50-100 acres to benefit fruit- eating migratory landbirds

3. Annually, maintain a minimum of 100-200 acres of maritime shrub and forest habitat with medium to high stem density (>10,000 stems/ha) and a mix of native and non-native plants to provide nesting and feeding habitat for eastern towhee, brown thrasher, prairie warbler, and cover for New England cottontail.

Rationale Coastal states have the primary responsibility for most of the native shrubland habitat in the region (Dettmers 2003, Litvaitis 2003). Shrub-dominated communities persist the longest at high elevations and in areas exposed to marine salt spray (Latham 2003). The loss and degradation of naturally maintained shrublands has been extensive throughout the region. Although fragmented by roads and development, coastal Massachusetts, including Parker River Refuge, supports persistent maritime shrublands, a thin band of vegetation that transitions to salt marsh.

Shrubland-associated birds consistently rank near the top of lists of species showing population declines. Prairie warbler is a highest priority and eastern towhee and brown thrasher are high priority birds in BCR 30 that occur on the Refuge (Steincamp 2006, draft). Vegetation structure, microhabitat conditions, and landscape context are the most important habitat features for these birds, rather than specific plant species (Dettmers 2003). Many other priority bird species in BCR 30 will benefit from the management objective to maintain native shrublands, particularly during fall migration including American woodcock, blue-winged warbler, willow flycatcher, gray catbird, and Canada warbler (Steincamp 2006, draft). The upland maritime forests on the Refuge support several species of breeding birds of high conservation concern in BCR 30 including Baltimore oriole and eastern kingbird.

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 57 V. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND PRESCRIPTIONS

The Refuge’s maritime shrubland and forest are important to breeding and migrating landbirds. Over 150 species of songbirds use shrub habitats on the Refuge. The use of an area as a migratory stopover depends, in part, on its quality (e.g., presence of fruiting shrubs) and its location in relation to ecological barriers (such as large bodies of water). Coastal habitats support large concentrations of migrating songbirds, particularly young of the year. Over 90% of the birds banded on the Refuge at the Massachusetts Audubon Society’s Banding Station during the fall migration are hatch year birds (MAS 2005), with weight gains as high as 30 percent in 7 days for migrants (MAS 2004).

Many landbirds shift from a largely insectivorous diet during the breeding season to a diet high in fruits during migration, hence the importance of Parker River’s maritime shrub and forest habitat with its high concentration of fruit-bearing species. This diet shift is particularly well documented in thrushes, vireos, warblers, mockingbirds and their relatives (Parrish 2000). Parrish (2000) captured red-eyed vireos, a highly frugivorous migrant, over ten times more frequently in coastal maritime scrub than in old orchard habitat on Block Island. Observations of migratory landbirds feeding on fruits show that these birds can spend less time and encounter more “prey” while foraging on fruit, an important implication for a bird’s energy budget (Parrish 2000).

The New England cottontail has declined significantly in the past 40 years, and is a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Extant populations of this subspecies have been found in Maine, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and parts of Massachusetts. The Refuge searched for New England cottontail by running mRNA analyses on scats collected in winter 2005-2006. Scats were found throughout the Refuge in potential New England cottontail habitat, specifically maritime shrub thickets, however all scat were determined to be eastern cottontail. Given Parker River self- maintaining shrub habitat, the Refuge is a good candidate for future reintroduction of this declining species.

Restoration and maintenance of naturally occurring shrublands is recommended as a priority for coastal states. Managing small patches (< 10ha) as shrubland habitat can be more effective than managing similarly sized grassland or forest because of the relatively low patch size sensitivity exhibited by many shrubland birds compared to some of the grassland and forest birds. Consolidating and clustering patches and maintaining some large patches of shrubland habitat will provide habitat for a range of wildlife, including migratory songbirds, American woodcock, and New England cottontail (Dettmers 2003, Litvaitis 2003). Creating a “checkerboard” of small habitat patches should be avoided where possible (Petit 2000).

Maritime and dry shrubland habitats contain invasive species of shrubs including honeysuckles, buckthorn, Asiatic bittersweet, and others that bear fruit and provide cover, but also out-compete native vegetation. Removing these invasive shrubs could reduce the habitat suitability for some species in the short term. An assessment is needed prior to removal to determine the short and long term effects of removal and options for restoring native shrubs.

Objective 1.4 Exemplary Plant Communities Maintain the native plant diversity, physiographic characteristics, and natural functions of the exemplary interdunal swale, sandplain grassland, and pitch pine dune woodland communities by minimizing human impact and controlling invasive plant species, and by 2021 restore 20 acres of pitch pine dune woodland by mechanical removal of non-native black pine, control of invasive plants, and re-planting native pitch pine and associated understory vegetation.

Rationale Interdunal swales are classified as a rare (S1) community in Massachusetts (MNHESP 2001b). These swales are low, shallow depressions that form behind primary or secondary dunes where the water

58 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

V. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND PRESCRIPTIONS

table intersects the soil surface for part or all of the growing season. Over time, the swales develop a thin layer of organic soil over coarse sand and support a diverse plant community. Interdunal swales range from unvegetated pools to grass- or forb-dominated to shrub-dominated communities and are typically less than ¼ acre in size. Plants commonly found in the Refuge swales include large cranberry ( Vaccinium macrocarpon ), meadowsweet ( Spiraea alba ), steeplebush ( S. tomentosa), and Sphagnum moss as well as various species of rushes and sedges. Shrubs surrounding the swale include bayberry, winterberry, arrowwood, alders, and willows. Locally rare herbaceous plants found in the swales include sundew ( Drosera intermedia ) and dragon’s mouth (State-listed threatened). In certain locations, invasive plant species such as bush honeysuckle and glossy buckthorn have invaded the adjacent shrub community, while purple loosestrife and common reed have invaded the open swales.

Interdunal swale communities provide the only source of natural freshwater on the Refuge in an otherwise saline environment. Some of the swales function as vernal pools, holding freshwater long enough to enable successful breeding of amphibians and invertebrates. In addition to these temporary wetlands, many vernal pool adapted species need relatively undisturbed upland habitat. The eastern spadefoot, a State-listed threatened species that breeds in these pools, burrows up to eight feet below ground in dry sandy soils to hibernate in winter and aestivate in summer. Plum Island is the northern limit of the species range and it has been extirpated from many historic sites in Massachusetts as a result of habitat loss from development (MNHESP 1986).

Sandplain grassland occurs on protected back dunes as small openings within pitch pine or shrub communities. Sandplain grassland is a rare vegetative community (S1, G2G3) that supports rare plants and may host rare moths and ground beetles, although no survey has been conducted on the Refuge.

Anglers access the beach via two off-road vehicle trails through the dunes. In 2004, the North Beach Access was re-routed around a cranberry bog (interdunal swale) due to the discovery of a rare plant that is found nowhere else on the Refuge. The South Beach Access cuts through a population of seabeach needlegrass, a State-listed species. Refuge staff have found tire ruts within this plant population where vehicles have pulled off to the side to let other vehicles pass or to turn around. The Refuge will continue to address and manage public use impacts with continued monitoring and input from users.

The pitch pine dune woodland is dominated by scattered pitch pines often with no or little shrub layer. The understory vegetation, if present, is typically beach heather, bearberry, lichen, or sandplain grassland species. Pitch pine communities (pitch pine-scrub oak barrens, ridgetop pitch pine-scrub oak barrens, and heathlands) support the highest concentration of rare and endangered Lepidoptera in Massachusetts. Forty one percent of state-listed moths and butterflies are associated with these communities, although studies have not yet been done on the Refuge. In 1970s, an escaped prescribed fire burned a significant portion of the dunes across from the North Pool. Refuge staff planted black pines ( Pinus nigra ) to stabilize the dunes. Today, black pines dominate many of the pine woodlands on the Refuge, but some of the native plant community and ecological function is retained in these forests. Future management challenges include preventing further expansion and removal of the exotic pines while continuing and evaluating restoration of native pitch pine.

Objective 1.5 Salt Marsh Annually, maintain 2,660 acres of salt marsh, including a mix of high and low salt marsh vegetation comprised of less than 5% overall cover of invasive plants, and pool and panne habitat consistent with local reference sites, to ensure that the quality and natural function of the marsh are sustained and provide breeding habitat for saltmarsh sharp-tailed sparrow and seaside sparrow, wintering areas for

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 59 V. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND PRESCRIPTIONS

American black duck, and foraging areas for marsh and wading birds and migrating shorebirds.

Rationale Up to 80 percent of the marshes that once occurred in New England have already been lost to human development with the remaining salt marshes in southern New England rapidly being degraded by fragmentation and development (Bertness et al. 2002). Ninety percent of salt marshes in New England, including those found on the Parker River Refuge, were parallel ditched for mosquito control and to facilitate salt marsh haying . The salt marsh at Parker River is part of the Great Marsh, the largest remaining contiguous salt marsh (20,000 acres) north of Long Island.

Saltmarsh sharp-tailed sparrow and seaside sparrow are species of highest conservation priority in BCR 30 and are well documented on the Refuge. Nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrows (medium BCR priority) also occur in the Refuge salt marshes. Flooding, particularly during new moon tides, is the primary cause of nest failure for the saltmarsh sharp-tailed sparrow, which is synchronized to nest immediately after a new moon tide. Vegetation structure and composition are less important in predicting nest success. Females wedge or suspend a nest in medium-high cordgrass just above the substrate or water near the mean high-tide line (Greenlaw and Rising 1994). In 2004 and 2005, researchers found extremely elevated levels of blood mercury in salt marsh sparrows at Parker River Refuge.

The seaside sparrow, with up to nine subspecies, two of which are extinct, is a potentially good indicator species for salt marsh ecosystems. Parker River is near the northern edge of its range. Seaside sparrows nest in expanses of medium high cordgrass ideally in sites not affected by severe flooding and near pools and creeks with open muddy areas for foraging. Historical ditching dried out salt marshes reducing cordgrass, muddy areas and increasing access for predators and woody vegetation (Post and Greenlaw 1994).

The American black duck is a globally vulnerable watch list species and is considered one of the highest priority species of concern according to the Atlantic Coast and Eastern Habitat Joint Ventures and among the state and provincial agencies where it occurs. The Parker River Refuge was established, in part, to benefit the American black duck. Coastal salt marshes, estuaries, and sheltered coves are especially important to migrating and wintering black ducks (Dettmers 2004). Parker River is one of the most important wintering habitats for the American black duck in New England, with over 2,500 ducks at peak times.

Many other species of wading birds, waterfowl, and shorebirds forage in the salt marsh during migration and in the breeding season. Some other regionally important species that use Refuge salt marshes include American bittern, least bittern, clapper rail, greater yellowlegs, semipalmated sandpiper, short-billed dowitcher, and northern harrier (State listed threatened). Several colonies of common terns, up to 150 nesting pairs, regularly nest in the salt marshes in and around Parker River Refuge.

The pools, ditches, and creeks of the coastal salt marsh are important nursery areas for common mummichogs, three species of sticklebacks (three, four, and nine-spined), Atlantic silverside, and American eel. Here the pressure from predators is lower and these fish can tolerate the low oxygen, higher water temperatures, and high salinity. These small fish species are prey for foraging birds and in the fall, the fish migrate out to the estuary, where they are prey for birds and commercial and sport fish.

With the exception of parallel ditching, the salt marshes on Parker River are relatively unaltered. As such, much of the management of the salt marsh is mainly custodial. Management challenges for

60 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

V. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND PRESCRIPTIONS

protecting the salt marsh habitat include restoring ditched salt marsh, controlling invasive species, monitoring focal species populations, preserving water quality, and minimizing human disturbance.

Objective 1.6 (Tidal River, Bay and Estuary) Through an active role in local, state and federal partnerships, maintain the water quality and ecological integrity of Plum Island Sound and its tidal rivers including the Parker, Rowley, and Ipswich Rivers to provide resting and foraging habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds, marsh and wading birds (including snowy egret, black duck, and whimbrel) and maintain or enhance migratory fish populations, including American eel and blueback herring.

Rationale: Fish are a valuable ecological indicator of the health of Plum Island Sound, its estuaries, bays, and tidal rivers. Since many of the fish in the Sound are migratory, they also serve as a link to the health of the greater region. The American eel, a catadramous fish, reproduces in the ocean (Sargasso Sea) and spends the majority of its life in brackish or freshwater, before returning to the sea as an adult. It goes through several life stages (larval, grass eel, elvers, yellow eel, silver eel), maturing very slowly over 7 to 30 years or more. The American eel was petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act in 2004. The Fish and Wildlife Service is reviewing this petition.

Buchsbaum et al. (1998) identified several potential threats and habitat issues that could affect the future integrity of Plum Island Sound as a thriving, productive coastal ecosystem. Some of these may affect the viability of the American eel. Issues of concern in the Sound include water quality, (particularly eutrophication), tidal restrictions, invasive species, mosquito control practices, fragmentation and loss of wetlands, aquaculture, and rising sea level. Dams and overfishing are believed to have left anadromous and catadromous fish populations as remnants of their historical levels. In addition to the eel, the tidal rivers of Plum Island Sound support several Federal trust fish species including alewife, bluefish and the Atlantic menhaden.

Refuge jurisdiction is limited to areas down to mean low water within the boundaries of Parker River NWR. Therefore partnerships with local communities, anglers, watershed associations, conservation groups, and researchers are essential to meeting this habitat objective. The Plum Island Sound estuary and surrounding watersheds is a Long Term Ecological Research site (LTER). The Woods Hole Marine Biological Laboratory and partners are studying how salt marshes in the area are affected by nutrient inputs from upland activities, including development. Their large-scale project involves enriching tidal creeks with nutrients to mimic nutrient overloading, and altering the population of a key salt marsh fish species, the mummichog, to better understand how these multiple stresses may affect the sustainability of coastal ecosystems (PIE-LTER 2006).

Objective 1.7 (Nearshore Marine Open Water) Through an active role in local, state and federal partnerships, ensure that Refuge trust species are represented and addressed when decisions and actions are implemented concerning nearshore and offshore uses .

Rationale Trust resources in the nearshore and offshore marine waters include anadromous fish, wintering, migratory and breeding waterfowl and waterbirds, seabirds, and marine mammals. There are many jurisdictions and sometimes competing national interests in the marine environment. States have authority over submerged lands and overlying waters from the shoreline out three miles. Federal territorial sovereignty extends 12 miles offshore, and the federal government controls ocean resources out 200 miles and more and there are more than 140 federal laws that apply to oceans and marine resources (Pew Oceans Commission 2003).

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 61 V. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND PRESCRIPTIONS

The threats to the oceans include nonpoint source pollution (i.e., oil runoff from streets and driveways and nitrogen release), point source pollution (i.e., waste from feedlots and passenger cruise ships), invasive species, aquaculture (i.e., accidental escape of fish, nitrogen, phosphorus and fecal matter discharge), coastal development, overfishing, habitat alteration from fishing gear that drag the seafloor, bycatch, and climate change (Pew Oceans Commission 2003). The Pew Commission documented that coastal development and associated sprawl each year destroy and endanger 20,000 acres of coastal wetlands and estuaries that serve as nurseries for fish and “paved surfaces have created expressways for oil, grease, and toxic pollutants into coastal waters”.

In addition to raising alarms about the current state of our marine waters, the Pew Commission provides a detailed set of recommendations toward a more sustainable future for coastal ecosystems (Pew Oceans Commission 2003). Although many of the recommendations are beyond the scope of Parker River NWR, the Refuge can contribute in several key areas including confronting urban sprawl and controlling invasive species. The Pew Commission recommends several ways to address urban sprawl: 1) develop an action plan to address nonpoint source pollution and protect water quality on a watershed basis, and 2) identify and protect from development habitat critical for the functioning of coastal ecosystems. Another call to action by the Pew Commission is to enhance “ocean literacy” by expanding marine education.

Several species of conservation concern occur in the nearshore and marine open waters of Parker River NWR. BCR 30 ranks the American Black Duck, Atlantic Brant and Common Eider as Highest Priority species. All three Scoter species (Black, Surf and White-winged), Lesser and Greater Scaup and the long-tailed duck are found in this habitat and are classified as High Priority in BCR 30 as well.

Harbor seals, hooded seals, and harp seals regularly use the Refuge beach and dunes most commonly during the winter months as haul out areas. Refuge staff works cooperatively with the New England Aquarium in monitoring and rescuing seals stranded on the Refuge. In addition, washed up whales and porpoises are occasionally encountered. The Refuge provides public education and crowd control to minimize harassment to stranded mammals when they occur.

GOAL 2 Manage the Refuge’s modified habitats to mimic natural functions and support native wildlife and communities, including species of conservation concern. Where appropriate, restore the biological integrity and diversity of these habitats.

Objective 2.1 Grasslands and Early Successional Habitats Manage 80 to 130 acres of existing grasslands and old fields to create a mosaic of grass, forbs, shrub, and bare ground to benefit regular (e.g., bobolink, savannah sparrow, northern harrier) and uncommon (or of conservation concern) nesting birds (e.g., field sparrow, willow flycatcher, blue- winged warbler), to provide foraging areas for migrating birds (e.g., American woodcock, whimbrel) and pollinating insects (e.g., bees and moths).

Specific objectives include:

• By 2012, restore 20-50 acres of open fields to a sandplain grassland community, comprised of 80 percent graminoids (little blue stem, coastal switch grass, woodland sedge, Green’s rush, poverty grass), 10 percent forbs (stiff aster, seaside goldenrod), and >5 percent bare ground.

62 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

V. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND PRESCRIPTIONS

• By 2021, maintain minimum of 50 acres of grassland habitat dominated by grasses (>70%), comprising less than 15 percent shrub species and greater than 5 percent bare ground.

• Maintain 20-30 acres “old-field” that includes less than 40 % shrubs, and over 50 grasses and forbs,

Rationale Historically, most of the Northeast was forested and open grasslands were uncommon, except for scattered openings that existed along river floodplains, wetlands, beaver meadows, salt marshes, and coastal sandplain grasslands and heathlands. Although the historical record is unclear about the avian diversity that occurred here prior to European settlement, Parker River is within the coastal region that likely supported native grasslands and associated wildlife. With little naturally maintained grassland remaining in the Northeast, Dettmer and Rosenberg (2002) emphasize preserving or restoring naturally occurring grassland communities where they occur in sufficient patch sizes. Most of the grassland bird species (e.g., savannah sparrows, eastern meadowlark) that have declined in the region require 20 acres or more of contiguous grassland habitat (Jones and Vickery 1997). Only the bobolink occupies areas less than 10 acres, although a viable population would require a larger grassland area.

The Refuge currently manages eight grassland units (including the dike system) totaling 130 acres through annual mowing; only three of which are larger than the recommended minimum size of 20 acres. Historically, these units were intensely managed (seeded, tilled, burned, etc.) for a high plant diversity of both native and introduced graminoid and forb species. Without intense management, invasive plants and woody species increasingly dominate the grasslands. A portion of these grasslands that tend toward woody invasion could be maintained in an old-field condition to benefit BCR 30 birds of high priority including field sparrow, eastern kingbird, prairie warbler, and blue- winged warbler, among others. Whimbrels forage in fields during migration and woodcock use them as roosting sites. The Refuge recently completed a site capacity evaluation for five grassland units and the Bill Forward Shrub unit to determine if the units should continue to be managed as grassland units. Below is a summary of the findings provided by Joann Hoy (2006).

SUB-HEADQUARTERS FIELD The sub-headquarters field is dominated by Virginia rose (Rosa virginiana ), climbing poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans ), and Pennsylvanian sedge (Carex pensylvanica ), with patches of hair fescue (Festuca filiformis ), hairy hudsonia (Hudsonia tomentosa ), and dune reindeer lichen (Cladina submitis ). It is largely uninvaded and supports a population of Aristida tuberculosa (sea-beach needle grass, a threatened species in Massachusetts). The lower areas and pool edges support Spartina pectinata (fresh-water cordgrass) and other native species, as well as a large patch of Solanum dulcamara (nightshade, an invasive plant).

There is a small dune area and dry sandy patches in the southwest corner, with vegetation similar to Bill Forward shrubland. Adjacent to this dune area is the Refuge burn pile, where vegetation refuse is dumped and burned annually. The transported vegetation may be responsible for nearby patches of invasive plants, including Morrow's honeysuckle (Lonicera morrowii ), drooping brome grass (Bromus tectorum ), and leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula ).

The soil upslope from the artificial pools appears to be sand, based on exposed patches, anthills, and vegetation. This corresponds to what is mapped: Udipsamments (from dune sand).

NORTH POOL FIELD Most of the North Pool field is patches of coastal interdune swales (including cranberry bogs) and

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 63 V. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND PRESCRIPTIONS

maritime shrublands (both habitats described in Swain and Kearsley 2000). Native roses and other woody plants are increasingly dominating these areas. The drier portions are dominated by nonnative grasses such as fescues ( Festuca filiformis and F. rubra ), Canada bluegrass (Poa compressa , and meadow fescue (Lolium pratense ). At slightly lower elevation, woody plants such as Virginia rose, climbing poison ivy, northern bayberry (Myrica pensylvanica ), and glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus ) become more prevalent. Although there are occasional invasive shrubs such as F. alnus , as well as reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea ), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria ), and common reed (Phragmites australis ), none of these dominates. The number of invasive plants increases from north to south. A dense stand of cattails ( Typha latifolia and perhaps T. angustifolia ) lines the undulating western edge of the fields.

The soils at the North Pool Field are mapped as Udipsamments (sand dunes). If left unmanaged, the drier patches would likely fill in with tall shrubs and become more or less like the shrublands on the east side of the main road. The wet patches might be more productive for the large cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon ), woolly bulrush (Scirpus cyperinus ), three-square rush (Schoenoplectus pungens ), and other freshwater wetland plants if the field were not mowed.

BILL FORWARD SHRUBLAND The Bill Forward shrubland is a mosaic of grassy openings and shrubs. It would probably become solid shrubs if not managed. The area south of the bird blind is about 50% shrubs, with 25% more that has small shrubs interspersed with graminoids, held in check by mowing every three to five years. Small patches of beach grass (Ammophila breviligulata ), Pennsylvanian sedge (Carex pensylvanica ), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium ), sea-beach needle grass (Aristida tuberculosa , a threatened species in Massachusetts), and other native grasses and forbs are interspersed in stands of shining sumac (Rhus copallinum var. latifolia ), beach plum (Prunus maritima ), northern bayberry (Myrica pensylvanica ), and pasture rose (Rosa carolina ). North of bird blind area has fewer shrubs (20% cover), more graminoids, and greater relief. Beach grass, climbing poison ivy, Pennsylvania sedge, beach plum, beach heather, and little blue are more prevalent here than south of the parking area. The small native trees are providing habitat for establishment of exotic and invasive plants, such as Asian bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus ), glossy buckthorn), and Morrow's honeysuckle. These exotics and poison ivy are quite dense under the black pine (Pinus nigra ) on either side of the blind.

Encouraging native grasses here might require management that mimics poor farming practices, such as frequent mowing and removal of vegetation or overgrazing by sheep (Foster and Motzkin 2003). Raleigh et al. (2003) suggest late-spring mowing or burning to encourage little bluestem.

BILL FORWARD FIELD The drier areas of the Bill Forward field (near the road) grade into the shrub and grass mosaic north of the field. Where they meet is a weedy area that harbors Canada bluegrass (Poa compressa ), drooping brome grass, English plantain (Plantago lanceolata ), common king devil (Hieracium piloselloides ), rabbit-foot clover (Trifolium arvense ), common timothy (Phleum pratense ), and Asiatic sweet clover (Melilotus indicus ). Wet areas clearly do not have natural vegetation, with single-species stands of curly dock (Rumex crispus ), foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum ), and common plantain (Plantago major ). The northwest corner of the field closest to the Bill Forward Impoundment historically has been planted with a seed mixture of annuals and weedy perennials.

The dominant soil in the Bill Forward Field is sand, not Ipswich/Westbrook mucky peat as mapped by National Soil Conservation Service (Hoy 2006). If it once was muck, the organic material has been incorporated into the darker fine sand of the top 30 centimeters of soil. Without active management, this field may revert to marsh, grading to shrubs in the higher areas.

64 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

V. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND PRESCRIPTIONS

CROSS FARM HILL Cross Farm Hill is a drumlin. The upper part is covered with a rather uniform mix of grass-leaved stitchwort (Stellaria graminea ) and grasses, including quack grass ( Elymus repens ), hard fescue (Festuca trachyphylla ), meadow fescue ( Lolium pratense ), common timothy, and Canada bluegrass. Interspersed among the mix grass are patches of common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca ), Asian bittersweet, Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense ), wild garlic (Allium vineale ), and climbing poison ivy. Canada thistle, an invasive plant, is particularly prevalent and dense at times. This plant is very difficult to control because of its deep roots. One way to control this thistle in old fields is to mow it close to the ground during flowering time for several years. A small patch of black swallowwort (Cynanchum louiseae) was also noted in the field.

According to Weare (1996), topsoil was removed from the top of this hill to build the road, which would explain the shallow depth to the dense layer in the Windsor soil in this part of the field. This land would most likely become coastal forest/woodland if left alone; typically, this soil type supports woods dominated by oaks, hickory, red maple, sugar maple, birches, and white pine (USDA-NRCS 2004). Presently it has virtually no native plants other than poison ivy, milkweed and goldenrods (Solidago spp).

STAGE ISLAND FIELD Once the edge of a glacial lake, Stage Island is now a linear field between the man-made Stage Island Impoundment and Plum Island Sound. The most common species are common timothy, Rhode Island bentgrass (Agrostis capillaris ), red fescue, redtop (Agrostis gigantea ), quack grass and goldenrods. Different parts of this long field have very different species assemblages, and the top (quite dry and sandy) supports a different species composition than the slope and the wet toe. Canada bluegrass is the most widespread invasive. There are large populations of leafy spurge, Asian bittersweet, and drooping brome grass, distributed in localized patches. Purple loosestrife is found in the lower areas.

The soil is Windsor loamy sand, and naturally supports oaks, pines, gray birch, poplar, red maple, and sugar maple (USDA-NRCS 2004). If unmanaged, it would likely revert to coastal forest/woodland with slow-growing shrubs in the understory.

Sandplain grasslands are a rare community in Massachusetts, dominated by grasses with some wildflowers and small patches of low-growing shrubs. They occur on flat outwash plains with drought, low nutrient soils. For those fields that will continue to be managed as grassland, the Refuge will manage for a species composition similar to that found in sandplain grassland communities, with a mosaic of grasslands with varying amounts of grasses, forbs, shrubs, and bare ground to meet the needs of the various species that use these grasslands.

Insects pollinate wild fruits, seeds, and nuts that are important food sources for birds and mammals as well as 75% of crop plants that are consumed by humans. Studies show that pollinators are in decline due to loss and fragmentation of habitat and extensive pesticide use ( www.xerces.org ). Refuges can effectively manage and contribute on a landscape scale to the conservation of insect pollinators since viable populations of these important insects can be maintained in small fields and grasslands.

Objective 2.2 Brackish Wetlands/Impoundments Annually manage the three 262 acres of brackish freshwater impoundments (Bill Forward, Stage Island, and North Pool) to support spring migrating shorebirds, breeding waterbirds and waterfowl, or fall migrating shorebirds and waterfowl. Management prescriptions will change from year to year,

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 65 V. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND PRESCRIPTIONS

dependent on wetland dynamics and vegetative composition, but may be directed to provide the following:

(1) Manage Bill Forward and Stage Island Pools for migrating shorebirds (e.g., short-billed dowitcher, semipalmated sandpiper, greater yellowlegs) to provide a mix of shallow water (<10 inches water depth), mudflat with sparse vegetation (<15% cover) and mudflats with no vegetation, at time of peak migration (spring: late May, and fall: early August) and by controlling invasive species

(2) Manage Bill Forward and Stage Island Pools for fall migrating waterfowl (e.g., black duck, American widgeon, gadwall) to provide shallow flooded (<12 inches) annual vegetation composed primarily of Cyperus , Echinochloa , Polygonum , Bidens and other seed producing moist soil vegetation at time of peak migration (late October to early November) and by controlling invasive species

(3) Manage North Pool, Bill Forward Pool, and Stage Island Pool for breeding waterbirds (e.g., clapper rail, American bittern, least bittern, marsh wren) and waterfowl (e.g., black duck, green- winged teal, gadwall) by maintaining water levels and controlling invasive species

Rationale Three “freshwater” impoundments--North, Bill Forward, and Stage Island Pools--were constructed by installing berms in the salt marsh on the west side of the barrier island in the 1940s and 1950s to provide waterfowl breeding habitat, particularly for the American black duck. The 114-acre North Pool is largely dominated by invasive Phragmites. The Bill Forward Pool (34 acres), separated from the North Pool by a cross dike, has the greatest management capability due to its gradual sloping elevations. The Stage Island Pool (118 acres) is located about 4 miles south of the other pools. Fifty- three acres of the impoundment can be managed as a moist soil unit due to its gradual sloping pool bottom elevations; the remainder of the impoundment is dominated with robust vegetation.

The impoundments were intensely managed for many years to benefit breeding waterfowl, with prescriptions ranging from discing, plowing, mowing, flooding, seeding, planting, burning, herbicide application and drawdown. Since the impoundments’ creation, Refuge management objectives have broadened to include a variety of wetland birds and other wetland-dependant wildlife species, and population studies have found that Parker River is more important as migration and wintering habitat for the American black duck than for breeding.

All three impoundments are entirely dependent on precipitation for their source of fresh water, thus limiting management capabilities. Eutrophication, silting of channels and ditches, subsidence, decrease in water quality and pest plant expansion has seriously impacted their habitat diversity and wildlife value, particularly in the North Pool. Past management limitations were related to an inability to adequately lower and raise water levels in some of the impoundments. This limitation resulted in a static water level regime for many years that lead to the cultivation of monotypic undesirable plant communities within these managed wetlands. Current management of the three Refuge impoundments is directed at mimicking natural processes that influence natural wetland habitats, often timing desired site conditions to meet life cycle needs of resources of concern, such as shorebirds, waterfowl, and marsh and wading birds. All the species listed in the three specific impoundment objectives are listed as BCR 30 priorities.

Impoundment management requires an adaptive and integrated approach to reduce or eliminate undesirable plant species, primarily Phragmites and purple loosestrife, while simultaneously stimulating the germination of seed producing vegetation and providing substrate for benthic

66 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

V. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND PRESCRIPTIONS

invertebrates. Parker River is currently participating in a three-year study to determine best management prescription to achieving optimum habitat for resources of concern while minimizing negative impacts associated with impoundments, including poor water quality and pest plants. The Refuge has also spent extensive time and effort researching the best methods for managing the North Pool. The Refuge will continue to assess and monitor its management of the North Pool and the effects on wildlife in advance of the development of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) beginning in 2009.

GOAL 3. Perpetuate the biological integrity and diversity of coastal habitat on Thacher Island to sustain native wildlife and plant communities, including species of conservation concern.

Objective 3.1 (Coastal Island) By 2017, restore a colony of common and roseate terns to Thacher Island NWR by creating gull-free zones on the Refuge portion of the Island, removing predators, and providing optimal breeding habitat in an area not susceptible to storm surges. Common terns prefer low (<0.5m) sparse (10-40% cover) vegetation or bare ground (i.e. sand, cobble, or ledge), whereas roseate terns prefer taller (0.5- 1m), medium density (>70% cover) vegetation.

Rationale During the 19 th century terns nested on islands throughout coastal New England. At the close of the 19 th century, hats adorned with tern feathers were the height of fashion generating a drastic decline in tern populations from over hunting for feathers (Drury 1973, Nisbet 1973). As the tern population declined, gulls, which compete for the same habitat as terns, occupied traditional tern nesting areas (Kress and Hall 2000). Despite new federal laws in the early 1900s protecting terns from humans, gulls prevented terns from nesting in their old habitats on offshore islands (Kress and Hall 2000). Reduced to nesting in marginal habitat, terns began breeding on mainland sites or inshore islands where mainland predators such as the great horned owl, brown rat, fox, coyote, black-crowned night heron, and humans were more common (Kress et al. 1983).

Thacher Island once was the breeding grounds for 1125 pairs of arctic, common, and roseate terns, as late as 1956 (Kress and Hall 2000). No terns currently nest on the island. The Island is 1.5 miles off the coast of Rockport, Massachusetts with Thacher Island NWR encompassing the northern 22 acres of the island. Tern restoration is feasible here given existing facilities which include a boat landing, overnight lodging, proximity to the Town of Rockport marina, and low public disturbance.

Thacher Island is an ideal tern restoration site. The island is an historic tern nesting area and continues to support suitable habitat. Thacher Island is in a good geographic location, situated between other tern nesting islands--Monomoy Island and coastal Maine islands. According to the Gulf of Maine Seabird Working Group, during the 2001 field season, 9634 common terns, 5 arctic terns, 10 roseate terns, and 1322 least terns were counted from South Monomoy Island to Salisbury, Massachusetts. From Kennebunk to Petit Manan NWR, Maine, 6806 common terns, 2771 arctic terns, 289 roseate terns, and 117 least terns were counted during the 2001 field season. On Seavey Island in New Hampshire, 2400 pairs of common terns, 63 pairs of roseate terns, and 6 pairs of arctic terns were recorded for the 2003 breeding season, a huge restoration success after the first 6 pairs of common terns settled there in 1997. These islands offer source populations for Thacher Island and in turn increase the survival of terns in case of a catastrophic event occurring north or south of Thacher Island.

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 67 V. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND PRESCRIPTIONS

Even though Thacher Island has the potential to become a prime tern breeding area, there are risks to tern restoration. Causes of tern breeding failure include predation, weather, flooding, food shortage, and disease. However, due to the large population of gulls on Thacher Island, competition is the greatest limiting factor to tern restoration. Herring and great black-backed gulls affect terns by eating eggs and chicks or through competition for breeding sites (Nisbet 2002). Gulls also nest earlier than terns and, therefore, can claim prime nesting territories (Kress and Hall 2000). Gulls force terns to abandon high quality habitat due to the risk of chick and egg predation. Numerous gull harassment and control techniques and other predator controls have been successfully used at other tern restoration sites.

Coastal Island habitat supports many unique or rare plants and animals not found on the mainland. Thacher Island NWR has been managed as a satellite refuge since its establishment. Due to the lack of onsite staff, little is known about the biological resources of the island. In order to base future management decisions on sound science, inventory of landbird, plant community, and invasive plants are needed for Thacher Island.

68 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

V. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND PRESCRIPTIONS

Chapter 5.

Management Strategies and Prescriptions

Barrier Beach Ecosystem and Estuarine Communities ° Piping Plover and Least Terns ° Sandy Beach, Rocky Shore and Dune Grasslands ° Maritime Shrubland and Forest ° Exemplary Plant Communities ° Salt Marsh

Human Modified Habitats ° Brackish Wetland/Impoundments ° Grassland

Thacher Island ° Tern Restoration

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 69 V. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND PRESCRIPTIONS

70 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

V. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND PRESCRIPTIONS

INTRODUCTION

This chapter sets out specific management strategies and prescription for meeting habitat management objectives identified in Chapter 4. Management strategies identify how (e.g. burning, water-level manipulation, mowing, etc.) we will achieve the habitat objectives. Management prescriptions further identify the specific means by which the strategies will be implemented (e.g. location, timing, frequeny, intensity). A comprehensive literature review was conducted to identify all potential strategies and prescriptions for each habitat objective. In consultation with other Refuge biologists, managers, and experts, we then selected the most effective strategies and prescriptions for accomplishing the habitat objectives. Since environmental factors, such as wildlife population, weather, and habitat conditions affect what prescriptions we select to achieve objectives from year to year, the details of prescriptions will be identified in the Annual Habitat Work Plan. Under this chapter, prescriptions are discussed conceptually.

The natural world, and particularly coastal habitats, is a vastly complex and dynamic system. As stewards of this ever-changing ecosystem, we can never completely understand every aspect of the system, but must be ready to react to its ever-changing geophysical, ecological, social, and political factors that influence status of biodiversity and its conservation. We can’t always know or predict which management strategies or prescriptions will be needed in five years or in ten years and not all strategies listed may be used at Parker River. Some management strategies identify inventory and monitoring of certain communities or populations. Specific details concerning implementation of the inventory and monitoring prescriptions will be identified in the Inventory and Monitoring Plan, to be updated by 2008.

MANAGEMENT UNITS

For the purpose of implementing these prescriptions, Parker River Refuge is divided into Management Units (Map 5-1). Management Unit boundaries were delineated based on a clear ecological feature such as a transition from salt marsh to upland forest or based on a physical feature such as a road or a berm. Several habitat types, such as grasslands and impoundments, require more intensive management, and thus management units are defined at a finer scale, where as other habitats, such as Maritime shrubs, do not require constant management, and are treated as one unit. Table 5-1 summarizes the management units at Parker River, the habitats objectives, and acreages. Thacher Island is managed as one Management Unit.

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 71 V. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND PRESCRIPTIONS

Map 5-1 Parker River NWR Management Units

72 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

V. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND PRESCRIPTIONS

Table 5-1. Management Units at Parker River NWR, see Map 5-1 for locations.

Management Units Habitat Type Habitat Objective Acres Tidal Beach Sandy Beach 1.1 & 1.2 182 Dune Grassland Dune Grassland 1.2 540 Bill Forward Shrub Early Successional 1.3 16 Maritime Shrubland and Martime Shrubland and 1.3 Forest Forest 333 Interdunal swale Interdunal Swale 1.4 47 Pitch Pine Forest and 1.4 Pitch Pine Forest Black Pine Forest 37 Sandplain Grassland 1.4 Sandplain Grassland 24 OMWM Marshes Salt Marsh 1.5 280 Ditched Marshes Salt Marsh 1.5 2380 Bill Forward Field Grassland 2.2 11 Cross Farm Field Grassland 2.2 24 NP/BFP/SI Dike Grassland 2.2 25 North Pool Field Grassland 2.2 26 Stage Island Field Grassland 2.2 14 Sub HQ Field Grassland 2.2 11 Nelson Island Field Grassland 2.2 22 North Pool Impoundment 2.1 114 Bill Forward Pool Impoundment 2.1 34 Stage Island Pool Impoundment 2.1 118

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND PRESCRIPTIONS BY HABITAT OBJECTIVE

SANDY BEACH MANAGEMENT UNIT

Objective 1.1 Sandy Beach, Rocky Shore, and Dune Grasslands -Piping Plover and Least Tern Work cooperatively with State (Sandy Point State Reservation) and local towns (Newburyport and Newbury) to protect from disturbance and degradation nine miles of nesting, staging, and foraging habitat for piping plovers and least terns. Through seasonal closures, predator management, and public education, maintain a minimum productivity of 1.5 chicks over a five- year period for piping plovers and a nesting least tern colony of 50-100 pairs.

Management Strategies and Prescriptions

• Annually monitor plover breeding activity two to five times per week from April to August to assess progress toward recovery objective and adaptively manage to maximize productivity and survival.

• By 2010, work with the northeast Least Tern Working Group to develop a monitoring protocol to better estimate nesting success of least terns on the Refuge.

• On Refuge beach, annually close nesting and foraging areas to minimize disturbance to nesting plovers and terns. o Close beach from Lot 1 access (milemarker 0.10) to southern border starting April 1. Rope off and install signs at Parking Lots 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7. Install symbolic fencing and

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 73 V. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND PRESCRIPTIONS

beach closure signs south of Lot 1 access and at the south end of the boundary. o Close Lot 1 to public use if: (1) territorial plovers are observed north of closure boundary; (2) a pair nests north of milemarker 0.16; or (3) chicks are observed foraging north of closure boundary. o Continue to recruit and train volunteer plover wardens to monitor human activity on the beach at the north and south boundary. Volunteers will educate the public about the closure and ensure compliance with beach closure. o Open portions of the Refuge beach to public use as plover and tern chicks fledge, starting at the north or south end. Never fragment beach nesting habitat by opening a middle section (e.g. open Lot 6, but Lot 5 and 7 are close to protect nesting birds in the area). • On State-owned beach (Sandy Point State Reservation, Town Beaches), annually minimize disturbance to nesting plovers and terns by symbolically fencing nesting areas. o At Sandy Point State Reservation, symbolically fence (one strand of light-weight string tied between posts with one to two flagging to increase visibility) potential plover nesting habitat on either side of west beach trail access on April 1. o As plover pairs establish breeding territory (see monitoring prescription above), move or install symbolic fence to provide a minimum of 100-meter buffer (as allowed by the intertidal zone) around nests. o On Town beaches, install symbolic fence as plover pairs establish breeding territories, providing a minimum of 100-meter buffer around the nests.

• Increase survival and productivity of plover and tern adults and chicks through management of potential predators, including raccoons, skunks, red fox, grey fox, coyote, gulls, crows, night-herons and great horned owls. o Install predator exclosure around nests that are vulnerable to mammalian predators (nest located in open sand, signs of predator tracks near nests) to increase hatching success. Exclosures should be buried a minimum of six inches to prevent predators from digging under. Pull exclosures immediately after all eggs hatch from the nest or if a nest is abandoned. o Coordinate closely with staff from Cranes Beach on avian predator targeting plover adults at exclosed nests. At first sign of adult predation, pull all exclosures to minimize adult loss. o Install an electric fence around tern nesting colony to protect colony from mammalian predators. o Work with staff from Sandy Point State Reservation to acquire and install electric fence for terns and plovers nesting at Sandy Point Reservation. o Monitor predator activity around nests, and target individuals that are predating on specific nest sites or locations, using non-lethal means first. Predator management methods, as described in detail in Appendix G, include behavior modification, trapping and shooting. o If predator activity is high on the Refuge beach for several years, contract with predator control experts (e.g. USDA Wildlife Services) to conduct several weeks of trapping prior to the start of nesting season.

• Educate the public about plovers and other wildlife using the beach, and potential negative impact of human disturbances. Develop and implement education and interpretive programs to foster stewardship among Refuge beach users. Examples of programs include installing interpretive signs at key beach access to encourage visitors to stay away from foraging or resting shorebirds; interpretive brochures explaining the importance of the Refuge beach as a

74 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

V. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND PRESCRIPTIONS

migratory stopover for shorebirds; and environmental education program on migration and migratory stopovers.

• By 2009, develop a baseline profile of the Refuge beach, and map and assess change every 2- 5 years to monitor availability of suitable breeding habitat for plovers and terns.

• By 2010, develop feasible habitat restoration strategies (e.g. creating wash-overs, manipulation vegetation, etc.) to enhance nesting areas for piping plovers, if determined necessary.

Objective 1.2 Sandy Beach, Rocky Shore, and Dune Grasslands Annually, maintain 182 acres of sandy beach and rocky shore and 540 acres of dune grassland habitat to benefit migrating shorebirds (e.g., sanderling and red knot) and nesting piping plover and least tern by regulating and directing public use to less sensitive areas (away from wrack line and nesting areas) and times (after nesting and migration seasons and away from roost sites) in the beach ecosystem.

Management Strategies and Prescriptions:

• Annually minimize human disturbance through seasonal beach closures, regulations, and education of beach users. Increase law enforcement presence on the beach during ORV- fishing season, particularly at night, to ensure compliance with Refuge regulations and to minimize impacts. o Evaluate re-designing Lot 5 boardwalk as a dune loop trail instead of a beach access. If finished as a beach acess, keep Lot 5 beach access closed until September 1 to provide a stretch of low disturbance beach habitat for fall migrating shorebirds. o Start allowing ORV beach use starting September 1 to reduce disturbance to shorebirds. o Continue to keep public use in dunes on elevated boardwalks.

• Every 3-5 years, evaluate boardwalk, beach access, and parking lot to reduce unnecessary access, particularly within the Dune Natural Research Area.

• By 2010, develop and implement a monitoring protocol to investigate how migratory shorebirds use Refuge beach, rocky shore, and mudflats (location, activity, timing), and assess how various types of beach use (e.g., walking, jogging, vehicle use, sunbathing) impact roosting and foraging shorebirds.

• By 2008, review off-road vehicles (ORV) use and adjust regulations to ensure that ORVs do not run over wrack, drive near the base of the foredune or on wet sand; guide ORV traffic to the berm zone, between the wrack and the foredune. Within the next five years, study how ORV use is impacting foragin and roosting shorebirds during the fall migration

• Work with Manomet Bird Observatory and USGS to determine suitability of establishing a Program for Regional and International Shorebird Monitoring (PRISM) site on the Refuge. Starting 2008, conduct survey to assess shorebird use of the Refuge using International Shorebird Survey (ISS) protocols.

• By 2008, review beach combing activity to determine impact to foraging habitat. If necessary, revise policy on beach combing and educate the public.

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 75 V. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND PRESCRIPTIONS

• Starting 2008, working with Ecological Services, initiate communication with the Army Corp of Engineers and towns of Newburyport, Newbury, and Salisbury to ensure that sand from dredging the Merrimack River is desposited offshore to allow beach replenishment on Plum Island.

• By 2012, inventory the wintering population of Ipswich savannah sparrow and identify their wintering habitat requirements.

MARITIME SHRUB AND FOREST MANAGEMENT UNIT

Objective 1.3 Maritime Shrubland and Forest Manage 333 acres of maritime shrubland and forest to provide nesting and migratory stopover habitat for landbirds of conservation concern including eastern towhee, brown thrasher, prairie warbler, and to benefit the New England cottontail. Specific management objectives are:

1. Annually, maintain a minimum of 100 acres of maritime shrub and forest habitat with medium to high stem density (>10,000 stems/ha) to provide nesting and feeding habitat for eastern towhee, brown thrasher, prairie warbler, and cover for New England cottontail.

2. By 2021, increase native maritime shrub and forest communities (dominated by native fruit- bearing shrubs and trees, including shadbush, black cherry, arrowwood, beach plum, bayberry, and elderberry and comprising less than 5% invasive plants) to 50-100 acres to benefit fruit-eating migratory landbirds.

Management Strategies and Prescriptions

• Evaluate Breeding Bird Survey protocol and existing survey data (1999-2006) to determine if additional survey points are needed in maritime shrubland and forest habitat to assess importance of Refuge as breeding habitats to priority birds of conservation concern.

• Continue to partner with Massachusetts Audubon Society to monitor landbird use of maritime shrub and forest habitat during spring and fall migration through the banding program.

• By 2012, work with Mass Audubon to analyze past banding data to determine how long birds are staying at the Refuge and how much fat is gained by birds during their stopover.

• By 2015, work with local university or researcher to develop a research project to study the nutritional value of native (beach plum, cherry, arrow-wood) vs. non-native (honeysuckle, buckthorn) fruits, and its impact to migratory landbirds.

• Maintain a sustainable, healthy deer population that doesn’t degrade the vegetation through over-browsing by assessing the deer population for carrying capacity by conducting weekly spotlight surveys every 3 years from September through November. o Continue the deer hunt program to maintain a sustainable deer population. This is currently an annual one-day hunt implemented the first Wednesday of December. Depending on the deer population, the hunting program may be expanded to a multiple- day hunt, or reduced to every other year. Refuge hunt will be implemented in compliance with the State regulations.

76 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

V. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND PRESCRIPTIONS

• Re-evaluate the white-tailed deer long-term exclosure study to determine its ability to detect effects of white-tailed deer impact given the time-intensive nature of data collection; consider discontinuing or modifying the study.

• Monitor beaver activity for excessive tree felling and girdling. If negative impact on shrub habitat is determined to be excessive, remove problem beaver through trapping.

• By 2015, work with staff from Concord, NH Field Office to evaluate the feasibility of re- introducing New England cottontail to the Refuge.

• Restore native vegetation and structure of the maritime shrub and forest habitat by reducing invasive plants. By 2010, work with fire and invasive plant experts to investigate the use of prescribed fire as a management tool to reduce invasive plants and maintain shrub habitat. o Annually control invasive plants through cutting, girdling, pulling, herbicide application (see Appendix G for details) targeting at eradication of certain early detection species (e.g. black locust, rusty willow, autumn olive), and restoring areas of low invasion.

RARE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT UNIT

Objective 1.4 Exemplary Plant Communities Maintain the native plant diversity, physiographic characteristics, and natural functions of the refuge’s exemplary plant communities -- interdunal swale, sandplain grassland, and pitch pine dune woodland.

Management Stategies and Prescriptions

• Within five years, delineate (GPS) the boundary of these rare communities, map and inventory invasive plants, and develop comprehensive plan for invasive plant management. o Selectively treat glossy buckthorn and Phragmites in the interdunal swales using methods described in Appendix G; augment population of Galerucella beetles or hand-pull purple loosestrife as needed. o Selectively treat glossy buckthorn, black locust, and Morrow’s honeysuckle in the sandplain grasslands and pitch pine dune woodland using methods described in Appendix G.

• Every 3-5 years, evaluate sandplain grassland, interdunal swale, and pitch pine dune woodland communities for plant composition and presence of invasive species.

• Establish baseline data on amphibians that breed in the interdunal swales by continuing frog call surveys. By 2010, initiate amphibian egg counts in select swales to assess diversity and density of amphibians breeding in the swales.

• By 2020 survey all three communities for rare plants and invertebrates, particularly Lepidoptera and tiger beetles.

• By 2007, map and inventory all black pine, red pine, and pitch pine forests on the Refuge, and by 2021, complete restoration of 20 acres of native pitch pine woodland. o Annually remove 2-5 acres of black pine using chainsaw or heavy equipment (e.g. Geoboy), leaving select mature pines to provide shelter for seedlings. o Plant pitch pine seedlings and saplings (up to 5 feet), spaced 15 to 20 feet apart during spring (April to June). Plants should be obtained from a local source if possible; check

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 77 V. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND PRESCRIPTIONS

commercially available plants to ensure that parent stock are obtained from coastal Massachusetts, New England, or New Jersey. Water seedlings and saplings as needed for the first two months. o Annually treat new invasive plants within restoration site with backpack sprayer as needed.

• By 2010, implement partial or seasonal closure of public access through these natural communities as needed to minimize negative impacts from disturbance, including erosion and introduction of invasive plants. o Establish a pull-off area along the South Beach Access to prevent impact to seabeach needlegrass (State species of concern). o Study impact of off-road vehicle use and human traffic (e.g. cranberry picking) in the interdunal swale north of Boardwalk 2.

• Within five years, coordinate with fire experts to determine feasibility of prescribed fire in sandplain grasslands and pitch pines, and develop fire prescription (frequency, intensity, timing, etc.) by 2010 if deemed appropriate.

• Working with federal and state Endangered Species Programs, evaluate the feasibility and appropriateness of restoring rare sandplain grassland species, such as New England blazing star ( Liatris scariosa var. novae-angliae ) and sandplain gerardia (Agalinis acuta ) to the Refuge’s sandplain grassland communities.

SALT MARSH MANAGEMENT UNITS: OMWM, DITCHED AND UNDITCHED

Objective 1.5 Salt Marsh Annually, manage 2,660 acres of salt marsh, including a mix of high and low salt marsh vegetation comprised of less than 5% overall cover of invasive plants, and pool and panne habitat consistent with local reference sites, to ensure that the quality and natural function of the marsh are sustained and provide breeding habitat for saltmarsh sharp-tailed sparrows, and seaside sparrow, wintering areas for American black duck, and foraging areas for marsh and wading birds and migrating shorebirds.

Management Strategies and Prescriptions

• Work with fisheries, ecological services, and other partners to assess the American eel population in the Refuge salt marsh, creeks, and estuary. Identify threats to American eel conservation and habitat restoration potential in the adjacent watershed.

• By 2010, develop a survey protocol to monitor population trend and densities of breeding saltmarsh sparrows (sharp-tailed, seaside, Nelson’s) at various salt marsh units on the Refuge.

• By 2012, assess productivity of saltmarsh sharp-tailed sparrow in salt marsh with high populations to ensure that these sites remain productive.

• Work with Manomet Bird Observatory and USGS to determine suitability of establishing a Program for Regional and International Shorebird Monitoring (PRISM) site on the Refuge. Starting 2008, conduct survey to assess shorebird use of the Refuge using International Shorebird Survey (ISS) protocols.

78 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

V. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND PRESCRIPTIONS

• Continue to annually monitor common tern nesting colonies in Plum Island Sound as part of the State’s annual colonial nesting bird surveys. As funding allows, increase monitoring of colonies to assess nesting success.

• By 2010, redesign the volunteer bird survey protocol to quantitatively assess waterbird use of salt marsh habitats through the year.

• By 2015, work with partners (e.g. MA Audubon, Ducks Unlimited) to develop and implement a survey protocol for nesting black rails within the Great Marsh.

• Continue to maintain a native shrub buffer next to the salt marsh, particularly adjacent to the main road. To reduce siltation, secure funding to pave the lower road, and design the road to minimize runoff into salt marsh habitat.

• Continue to review requests for public access to and use of salt marsh habitat and associated mudflats (e.g. clamming, research, aquaculture) to minimize potential human impact.

• By 2010, identify and conserve high priority salt marsh and upland habitats that support priority resources of concern and/or contribute to the long term integrity of the salt marsh ecosystem.

• Working with Eight Towns and the Bay and Wetland Restoration Program, identify presence and source of chemical contamination (e.g. mercury, lead, organophosphates, PCB, etc.), siltation, eutrophication, and other forms of pollution. Develop a plan to minimize or reduce ongoing sources of pollution by 2020.

• Work with local towns and conservation groups to protect and restore the Parker River watershed and Plum Island Sound. Continue to be an active member of the Area Contingency Plan Team to respond to oil spills and other contamination events.

• Continue to work with local towns to develop resource management plans for the Parker River / Plum Island Sound estuary and adjacent tidal rivers.

• Continue to collaborate with the Northeast Mosquito Control District to implement the minimum, least environmental damaging strategies for nuisance mosquito control. At a minimum, follow recommendations in the Interim Guidance for Mosquito Management on National Wildlife Refuges (USFWS 2004b) .

• Continue to participate in the ongoing mercury bio-accumulation study in salt marsh sparrow, and seek additional funding to expand research to investigate the geographic and biological (species) scope of mercury impacts and other contaminants (e.g. PCBs, organophosphates).

• As part of the LMRD program, monitor the health and integrity of salt marsh habitat. Identify criteria and establish guidelines for assessing salt marsh integrity. By 2008, establish 2-3 reference location on both sides of Plum Island Sound for use in assessment, research and assessing management prescriptions. Evaluate OMWM marshes and ditched marshes for biological integrity in relation to the reference sites.

• Install Sediment Elevation Tables to monitor sea level rise, and continue to work with NEERS to investigate the source and extent of salt marsh dieback within New England, and research strategies to restore impacted sites.

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 79 V. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND PRESCRIPTIONS

• Continue to control invasive plant species ( Phragmites , perennial pepperweed, Japanese knotweed) in the salt marsh through cutting, hand pulling, stem injection, and herbicide application (cut and drop or spot treatment).

• Assess geophysical and ecological conditions and potential causes of the apparent Phragmites expansion at the north end of Plum Island Sound. By 2010, develop best management practices to control Phragmites . Starting 2009, initiate study to investigate feasibility of restoring tidal restrictions on the Plum Island Turnpike (i.e. Plumbush Creek and the Plum Island Bridge).

• Partner with State Coastal Zone Management and Eight Towns in the Bay to investigate feasibility of restoring an eel grass bed to the Plum Island Estuary. If feasible, identify and rank historic eel grass beds for restoration potential. Implement restoration pending funding and feasibility.

• By 2010, analyze the results of the long-term OMWM study and evaluate whether current OMWM practices are meeting the management objectives for salt marsh management. As necessary, adjust OMWM techniques to meet objectives or investigate new and innovative strategies to reduce mosquito breeding and benefit trust resources.

• Working with the Great Marsh Coalition, identify salt marshes within the Great Marsh with restoration potential and rank by priority by 2015. Develop innovations in restoration techniques and best management practices for restoring and managing degraded sites.

GRASSLAND MANAGEMENT UNITS Bill Forward Field, Bill Forward Shrub, Stage Island Field, Cross-Farm Field, North Pool Field, Sub HQ Field, Dikes, Nelson’s Island

Objective 2.1 Grassland Manage 80 to 130 acres of grassland habitat with minimum size of 20 acres at a height of 8 to12 inches during the summer to provide nesting habitat for grassland nesting birds, such as bobolink and field sparrow, and migration habitat for Lepidoptera, whimbrels, and other species. In addition:

• By 2012, restore 20-50 acres of open fields to a sandplain grassland community, comprised of 80 percent graminoids (little blue stem, coastal switch grass, woodland sedge, Green’s rush, poverty grass), 10 percent forbs (stiff aster, seaside goldenrod), and >5 percent bare ground.

• By 2021, maintain a minimum of 50 acres of grassland habitat dominated by grasses (>70%), comprising less than 15 percent shrub species and greater than 5 percent bare ground.

• Maintain 20-30 acres “old-field” that includes less than 40 % shrubs, and over 50% grasses and forbs.

Management Strategies and Prescriptions

• By 2010, develop best management prescriptions (mowing, burning, frequency, seeding, herbicide, haying, disking, etc.) for maintaining grass-dominated fields.

80 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

V. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND PRESCRIPTIONS

o Annually maintain the grassland units through annual mowing or burning after grassland bird breeding season (August 31). o Starting 2008, experiment with a rotational mowing schedule where one grassland unit is mowed multiple times during a growing season. On a 3-5 year cycle, mow 3-5 times a year to discourage invasive shrub species. Complete first mowing before start of grassland bird nesting season to discourage breeding at that grassland unit for the year. Incoporate prescribed fire where feasible and appropriate.

• By 2012, start experimenting with feasibility of restoring the vegetative community to one additional representative site of sandplain grassland community. Potential prescriptions for grassland restoration techniques are discussed in Appendix G.

• Continue to monitor breeding birds in the Refuge’s grassland units to determine population trends, density, and use by grassland obligate species (e.g. eastern meadowlark).

• By 2009, manage the Bill Forward Shrub unit as a graminoid-dominated grassland unit, with a dominant mix of Pennsylvanian sedge, little bluestem, sea-beach needle grass, and poverty grass.

• By 2010, let the North Pool Field revert to open shrub habitat. Monitor shrub regeneration and control invasive species (glossy buckthorn and morrow’s honeysuckle) to ensure a native dominated vegetative community. Maintain the North Pool field to comprise less than 40 percent shrub species.

• By 2021, let Cross Farm Hill revert back to maritime forest. Monitor shrub and tree regeneration and manage for invasive species to ensure a native dominant vegetative community.

• By 2012, evaluate importance of Plum Island for migrating monarchs, and develop strategies for its management if appropriate.

BRACKISH WETLAND MANAGEMENT UNIT Bill Forward Pool, Stag Island Pool, and North Pool

Objective 2.2. Annually manage the three brackish impoundments (totaling 262 acres) to support spring and fall migrating shorebirds, spring and fall migrating waterfowl (American black duck), and breeding marsh and wading birds. Management prescriptions will change from year to year, dependent on wetland dynamics and vegetative composition, but will be directed to provide the following each year: 1. Migrating shorebirds: shallow (<10 inches water depth) to mudflat habitat with sparse (<15% cover) to no vegetation, at time of peak migration (late May and early August)/ 2. Fall migrating waterfowl: shallow flooded (<12 inches) annual vegetation composed primarily of Cyperus , Echinochloa , Polygonum , Bidens and other seed producing moist soil vegetation at time of peak migration (late October to early November) 3. Manage for breeding wading birds (e.g. clapper rail, American bittern, least bitter, marsh wren) and waterfowl (e.g. black duck, green-winged teal, gadwall) by maintaining water levels and controlling invasive plants.

Management Strategies and Prescriptions

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 81 V. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND PRESCRIPTIONS

Management of impoundments involved dynamic management prescriptions that mimic water regimes of natural wetlands. Management of Bill Forward and Stage Island Pools is typically timed to benefit waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds. Water level manipulations are conducted through the use of water control structures that draw down or flood water levels in the impoundment. In a year with average precipitation, Refuge staff typically chooses to manage each impoundment for either spring or fall migration. This is particularly true for shorebirds, where extensive drawdown is needed to provide optimal habitat during peak migration. Prescriptions for water level management for both spring or fall shorebird migration are described below.

• By 2009, fine-tune water level management capability by installing staff gauges in relation to absolute sea level and completing bathymetry (bottom contour) of the impoundments.

• Continue to participate in the Regional Impoundment Study, implementing spring drawdown of Bill Forward Pool and fall drawdown of Stage Island Pool during 2007. Continue to monitor waterbird use and response of invertebrates and vegetative community.

• Continue to manage the North Pool to benefit breeding wading birds and waterfowl by maintaining high water levels through the breeding season (April – August). Develop monitoring protocols to collect additional data (vegetative community, bird use, water quality, etc.) needed to make an informed decision during the Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process.

• Monitor wading bird and waterfowl use in the impoundments as well as biotic and abiotic metrics of environmental health (i.e. change in Phragmites and cattail population, dissolved oxygen, pore water quality, and fish composition and population).

• Starting 2008, alternate between spring and fall drawdown for Bill Forward and Stage Island Pools to provide habitat for migrating shorebirds and waterfowl as prescribed below. Implement the drawdown and flooding such that at least one impoundment is providing habitat for shorebirds and waterfowl during each migration period.

Spring Shorebird, Full Waterfowl Migration Drawdown o Maintain full pool during winter and spring months (until April). o Starting mid April, drawdown water level during a 6-8 week period such that shallow water (<10 inches) and mudflats are maximized at peak shorebird migration (late May). o Maintain low water from mid June to mid August to encourage germination of moist-soil plants and growth of invertebrate population. o Starting mid-August, start slow flooding of impoundment for the late shorebird fall migration and fall waterfowl migration. Maximize optimal water level for dabbling ducks (12-18 inches) in mid September and optimal water level for diving ducks (> 24 inches) in mid October. o Flood water level to full pool prior to freeze date.

Fall Shorebird, Spring and Fall Waterfowl Migration Drawdown o Maintain full pool during winter months (until March) o Starting early March, drawdown water levels during a 2-3 week period to provide spring waterfowl migration habitat. Maintain water levels at an average depth of 12-18 inches for 2-3 weeks, then flood up to full pool by early May. o Maintain full pool from May until late June.

82 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

V. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND PRESCRIPTIONS

o Starting late June to early July, drawdown water levels over a 6-8 week period such that shallow water (<10 inches) and mudflats are maximized at peak fall shorebird migration (late July). o Maintain low water levels from mid August to early September to encourage germination of moist-soil plants. o Starting early September, start slow flooding of impoundment to maximize optimal water level for dabbling ducks (12-18 inches) in later September and diving ducks (>24 inches) in late October. o Flood water level to full pool prior to freeze date.

• Annually monitor plant response to water level management using established vegetation plots in the impoundments.

• Manage the robust vegetation area against invasive plants (i.e. Phragmites, purple loosestrife) and promote a mix of native wetland plants (e.g. cattail, asters, beggars tick). Manage the moist soil area of Stage Island and Bill Forward Pool for submerged aquatic and emergent plants, such as sedges, rushes, and grasses. o On a 3-5 year cycle, flood as much as the impoundment as feasible from December to July following a fall/winter mowing to inhibit vegetative growth of robust vegetation. o Using a combination of water level manipulation, discing, herbicide, mowing, prescribed burns, biological control and planting (described in Appendix G), manage for desired vegetation and against invasive plants.

THACHER ISLAND NWR

Objective 3.1 Coastal Island By 2015, restore a colony of common and roseate terns to Thacher Island NWR by creating gull-free zones on the Refuge portion of the Island, removing predators, and providing optimal breeding habitat in an area not susceptible to storm surges. Common terns prefer low (<0.5m) sparse (10-40% cover) vegetation or bare ground (i.e. sand, cobble, or ledge), whereas roseate terns prefer taller (0.5- 1m), medium density (>70% cover) vegetation.

• Annually, conduct nest count of breeding gulls in late May, and reduce gull population and productivity by puncturing eggs. Resurvey nesting activity in mid June to assess success and pucture any viable eggs.

• Starting 2008, inventory the plant communities, vernal pools, invasive plants, landbirds and waterbirds of Thacher Island by organizing one to two Bioblitz days annually.

• By 2010, work with the Thacher Island Association to initiate invasive species control on entire island, targeting plants that are adversely impacting trust resources.

• Collaborate with the Massachusetts Audubon Society and other adjacent island owners to seek potential funding resources for restoration project. The tern restoration program, described below, will only be implemented if long-term funding for continued management can be secured.

By 2010, (Phase I: Create Suitable Breeding Habitat)

• Establish (1) a gull-free zone on Refuge-owned land, (2) a no gull production zone in the middle of the island, and (3) a restricted gull breeding zone at the south end of the island.

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 83 V. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND PRESCRIPTIONS

• Starting mid-April annually, establish camp on island to initiate gull harassment program, including running dogs, pyrotechnics, human disturbance of nesting sites, and egg and nest destruction in the gull-free zone, and the no gull-production zone. o Discourage gulls from the gull-free and no-gull production zone by running dogs, using pistol-launched pyrotechnics (screams and bangers), and walking the zones 30 minutes before and after sunrise. o In the gull-free and no-gull production zone, destroy eggs and scatter egg nesting materials to discourage nesting. In the restricted gull-breeding zone, periodically puncture eggs to limit gull population growth.

• Conduct predator surveys, including night surveys, to assess type of potential tern predators on the island; and implement predator control if necessary.

• Assess potential nesting site and manage vegetative structure to create optimal nesting habitat for Arctic and roseate terns (See Appendix G for details).

By 2013, (Phase II: Establish Colony)

• After the no gull and no gull production zones are successfully established, use wooden decoys and sound recording to attract terns to the island for breeding. Install a minimum of 100 decoys anchored to the ground, and play recordings. Allow up to three years for terns to respond to attractants.

• Maintain the no-gull zone by using barrier (string) to prevent establishment of gull colony prior to tern nesting and continue to harass gulls attempting to nest in the gull-free and no gull production zone.

• Implement predator control and breeding habitat enhancement programs, as necessary.

• Working with the Thacher Island Association and the Town and Rockport, develop education and outreach material to educate the public about the tern restoration project and to minimize disturbances.

By 2015 (Phase III: Manage and Maintain Colony)

• Monitor use and the reproductive success of the tern colony.

• As necessary, continue gull harassment, predator protection, habitat enhancement, and public education.

84 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

LITERATURE CITED

Literature Cited

Able, K. W., S. M. Hagan, and S. A. Brown. 2003. Mechanisms of marsh habitat alteration due to phragmites: Response of young-of-the-year Mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus) to treatment for Phragmites removal. Estuaries 26: 484-494.

Adamowicz, S. C. and L. Wagner. 2005. Northeast sudden wetland dieback workshop proceedings. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 69 pp.

Askins, R. A. 1993 Population trends in grassland, shrubland, and forest birds in eastern North America. Current Ornithology 11: 1-34.

-----. 1999. History of grassland birds in eastern North America. Studies in Avian Biology. 19:60-71.

-----. 2000. Restoring North America’s birds: lessons from landscape ecology. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

Austin, O. L., Jr. 1983. The Seaside sparrow assemblage: a review of its history and biology. Pp. 13–17 in The Seaside Sparrow, its biology and management (T. L. Quay, J. B. Funderburg, Jr., D. S. Lee, E. F. Potter, and C. S. Robbins, eds.). Occasional Paper in North Carolina Biological Survey, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Bailey, R. G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. Miscellaneous Publication Number 1391. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Washington, D.C.

Benoit, L. K., and R. A. Askins. 1999. Impact of the spread of Phragmites on the distribution of birds in Connecticut tidal marshes. Wetlands 19:194-208.

Bertness, M. D., P. J. Ewanchuk, and B. R. Silliman. 2002. Anthropogenic modification of New England salt marsh landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99: 1395-1398.

----- B. R. Silliman, and R. Jefferies. 2004. Salt marshes under siege. American Scientist 92: 54-61.

Boerner, R.E. 1981. Fire and nutrient cycling in temperate ecosystems. BioScience, 32(3)187-192.

Brooks, R. T. 2003. Abundance, distribution, trends, and ownership patterns of early-successional forests in the northeastern United State. Forest Ecology and Management, 185:65-74.

Buchsbaum, R., T. Purinton, and B. Magnuson. 1998. The marine resources of Parker River-Plum Island Sound Estuary: an update after 30 years. Massachusetts Audubon Society, Concord, Massachusetts.

Buchsbaum, R.N., J.Catena, E. Hutchins, and M.J. James-Pirri. 2006. Changes in salt marsh vegetation, Phragmites australis, and nekton in response to increased tidal flushing in a New England salt marsh. Wetlands. V26(2):544-557.

Buell, M.F. and J.E. Cantlon. 1953. Effects of prescribed burning on ground cover in the New Jersey Pine Region. Ecology, 34(3):520-528.

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 85 LITERATURE CITED

Casey, J. 2004. Potential refuge contributions to resources of concern: an analysis to assist northeast New England Refuges with determining their contribution to conservation targets. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Region, Hadley, Massachusetts.

Cogbill, C. V., J. Burk, and G. Motzkin. 2002. The forests of presettlement New England, USA: spatial and compositional patterns based on town proprietor surveys. Journal of Biogeography, 29:1279-1304.

Dudley, J.L. and K. Lajtha. 1993. The effects of prescribed burning on nutrient availability and primary production in sandplain grasslands. American Midland Naturalist, 130:286-298.

Dunwiddie, Peter W., Robert E. Zaremba, and Karen A. Harper. 1996. A classification of coastal heathlands and sandplain grasslands in Massachusetts. Rhodora 98:117–45.

Cronin, W. 1983. Changes in the land: Indians, colonists, and the ecology of New England. Hill and Wang, New York, New York.

Davis, M. B. 1981. Quaternary history and the stability of forest communities. Pages 133-153 in D.C. West, H.H. Shugart, and D.B. Botkin, editors. Forest succession. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York.

------. 1983. Holocene vegetational history of the United States. Pages 166-181 in H.E. Wright, Jr, editor. Late-Quaternary environments of the United States, Volume 2: The Holocene. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

DeGraaf, R. M., and M. Yamasaki. 2001. New England wildlife: habitat, natural history, and distribution. University Press of New England, Hanover, New Hampshire.

Dettmers, R. 2003. Status and conservation of shrubland birds in the northeastern US. Forest Ecology and Management 185: 81-93.

------. 2004. Draft blueprint for the design and delivery of bird conservation in the Atlantic northern forest. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, Massachusetts.

------, and K. V. Rosenberg. 2000. Partners in Flight landbird conservation plan, physiographic area 9: Southern New England. American Bird Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia.

DiTomasto, J.M., M.L. Brooks, E.B. Allen, R. Minnich, P.M. Rice, and G.B. Kyser. 2006. Control of invasive weeds with prescribed burning. Weed Technology. 20:535-578.

Drury, W. H. 1973. Population changes in New England seabirds. Bird-banding, 44:267-313.

Forman, R.T. and R.E. Boerner. 1981. Fire frequency and the pine barrens of New Jersey. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, 108(1):34-50.

Foss, C. R. 1992. Wildlife in a changing landscape. Pages 14-22 in R. Ober, editor. At what cost? Shaping the land we call New Hampshire. New Hampshire Historical Society and the Society for the Protection of NH Forests, Concord, New Hampshire.

Foster, D. R. 2000. Conservation lessons and challenges from ecological history. Forest History Today, Fall, 2-11.

86 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

LITERATURE CITED

------, and G. Motzkin 2003. Interpreting and conserving the openland habitats of coastal New England: insights from landscape history. Forest Ecology and Management, 185:127-150.

------, G. Motzkin, D. Bernardos, and J. Cardoza. 2002. Wildlife dynamics in the changing New England landscape. Journal of Biogeography, 29:1337-1357.

Gochfeld, M., J. Burger, and I. C. T. Nisbet. 1998. Roseate tern ( Sterna dougallii ). In The Birds of North America, No. 370 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Graham, R. W. 1992. Late Pleistocene faunal changes as a guide to understanding the effects of greenhouse warming on the mammalian fauna of North America. Pages 76-87 in R.L. Pters and T.E. Lovejoy, editors. Global Warming and Biological Diversity. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

Greenlaw, J. S. 1992. Seaside sparrow, Ammodramus maritimus . Pp. 211–232 in Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the northeast (K. J. Schneider and D. M. Pence, eds.). U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, Massachusetts.

-----. and J. D. Rising. 1994. Sharp-tailed sparrow ( Ammodramus caudacutus ). In The Birds of North America, No. 112 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences, Washington, D.C.

Gwilliam, E.L. 2004. Extent and composition of open coastal sandplain plant communities of the Cape Cod National Seashore. Master Thesis. University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island. 70pp.

Helmers, D. L. 1992. Shorebird Management Manual, Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. Manomet, MA. 58 pp.).

Hodgman, T. P., W. G. Shriver, and P. D. Vickery. 2002. Redefining range overlap between the sharp- tailed sparrows of coastal New England. Wilson Bulletin, 114: 38-43.

IPANE Species List. 2003. In L. J. Mehrhoff, J. A. Silander, Jr., S. A. Leicht, E. S. Mosher, and N. M. Tabak, IPANE: Invasive Plant Atlas of New England . Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Available at http://www.ipane.org.

Johnson, M., and L.W. Oring. 2002. Are nest exclosures an effective tool in plover conservation? Waterbirds 25(2):184-190.

Jones, A. L., and P. D. Vickery. 1997. Conserving grassland birds: managing large grasslands including conservation lands, airports, and landfills over 75 acres for grassland birds. Center for Biological Conservation, Massachusetts Audubon Society, Lincoln, Massachusetts.

Jones, L. 1906. A contribution to the life history of the common ( Sterna hirundo ) and roseate ( S. dougallii ) terns. Wilson Bulletin 18:36–47.

Konisky, R.A. 2004. Analysis of expected habitat response to current and potential tidal restoration conditions at the North Pool (Parker River National Wildlife Refuge). Newfields, New Hampshire.

Kress, S., and C. S. Hall. 2002. Tern Management Handbook, Coastal Northeastern United States and Atlantic Canada. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, Massachusetts.

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 87 LITERATURE CITED

Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States. American Geographical Society, Special Publication No. 36, New York, NewYork.

Lane, J.L. and K.C. Jensen, Moist-soil impoundments for wetland wildlife. 1999. Technical Report EL- 99-11. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ecosystem Management and Restoration Research Program. October 1999.

Latham, R. E. 2003. Shrubland longevity and rare plant species in the northeastern United States. Forest Ecology and Management, 185:151-168.

Lezberg, A.L., K. Buresch, C. Neill, and T. Chase. In Press. Land clearing to promote sandplain communities. Submitted to Restoration Ecology 2005.

Liebezeit, J.R. and T.L. George. 2002. A summary of predation by corvids on threatened and endangered species in California and management recommendations to reduce corvid predation. Final report to: California Department of Fish and Game, Species Conservation and Recovery Program Report 2002-02. Sacramento, California. 103 pp.

Litvaitis, J. A. 2003. Are pre-Columbian conditions relevant baselines for managed forests in the northeastern United States? Forest Ecology and Management, 185:113-126.

Lorimer, C. G. 1977. The presettlement forest and natural disturbance cycle of northeastern Maine. Ecology, 58:139-148.

------, and A. S. White. 2003. Scale and frequency of natural disturbances in the northeastern US: implications for early successional forest habitats and regional age distributions. Forest Ecology and Management, 185:41-64.

-----, and J.P. Tash. 2006. Status, habitat features associated with remnant populations, and identification of sites for restoration and translocation of New England cottontails. Final report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New England Field Office, Concord, New Hampshire.

Marchand, P. J. 1987. North woods: an inside look at the nature of forests in the Northeast. Appalachian Mountain Club, Boston, Massachusetts.

Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program. 1986. Eastern spadefoot. Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program, Westborough, Massachusetts.

-----. 1990. Piping plover. Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program, Westborough, Massachusetts.

-----. 2001. Classification of the natural communities of Massachusetts. Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program, Westborough, Massachusetts.

Merriam, T. L. 1983. Food habits of nestling seaside sparrows in unaltered and ditched salt marshes on Long Island, New York. Pp. 115–122 in The Seaside Sparrow, its biology and management (T. L. Quay, J. B. Funderburg, Jr., D. S. Lee, E. F. Potter, and C. S. Robbins, eds.). Occasional Paper in North Carolina Biological Survey, Raleigh, North Carolina.

88 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

LITERATURE CITED

Mitchell, L.R., C.R. Smith, and R.A. Malecki. 2000. Ecology of grassland breeding birds in the northeast United States- a literature review with recommendations for management. US. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division. Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University. 69pp.

National Audubon Society. 2004. Seaside sparrow. National Audubon Society, Washington, D.C.

National Invasive Species Council. 2001. Meeting the invasive species challenge: national invasive species management plan. Washington, D.C.

NatureServ. 2002 International Classification of Ecological Communities: Terrestrial Vegetation of the United Stated: North Atlantic Coast Ecoregion. Report from Biological Conservation Datasystem. Arlington, Virginia. 165 pp.

Niedowski, N.L. 2000. New York State salt marsh restoration and monitoring guidelines. New York State Department of State, Division of Coastal Resources and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources. 172 pp.

Nisbet, I.C.T. 1973. Terns in Massachusetts: Present numbers and historical changes. Bird-Banding, 44(1): 27-55.

----. 1984. "Seasonal variations in breeding success of Common Terns: consequences of predation." Condor, 86: 53-60.

----. 2002. Common Tern ( Sterna hirundo ). In The Birds of North America, No. 618 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. Norment, C. 2002. On grassland bird conservation in the northeast. The Auk, 119:271-279.

Parrish, J. D. 2000. Behavioral, energetic, and conservation implications of foraging plasticity during migration. Studies in Avian Biology, 20:53-70.

Patterson, W. A., III, and K. E. Sassaman. 1988. Indian fires in the prehistory of New England. Pages 107-135 in G.P. Nicholas, editor. Holocene human ecology in northeastern North America. Plenum Press, New York, New York.

Petit, D. R. 2000. Habitat use by landbirds along neartic-neotropical migration routes: implications for conservation of stopover habitats. Studies in Avian Biology, 20:15-33.

Pew Oceans Commission. 2004. America’s living oceans: charting a course for sea change. Pew Oceans Commission, Washington, D.C.

Pielou, E. C. 1991. After the ice age: the return of life to glaciated North America. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.

PIE-LTER. 2006. Plum Island Sound- Long Term Ecological Research. http://ecosystems.mbl.edu/PIE/

Pimentel, D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2000. Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. BioScience 50:53-65.

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 89 LITERATURE CITED

Post, W., and J. S. Greenlaw. 1994. Seaside sparrow ( Ammodramus maritimus ). In The Birds of North America, No. 127 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C. The American Ornithologists’ Union.

Raleigh, Lloyd, Joseph Capece, and Alison Berry. 2003. Sand Barrens Habitat Management: A Toolbox for Managers . Vineyard Haven, MA: Trustees of Reservations. Available at http://www.thetrustees.org/pages/1666_sand_barrens_management.cfm.

Russell, E. W. B. 1983. Indian-set fires in the forests of the northeastern United States. Ecology, 64:78- 88.

Schueler, T.R. 1987. Controlling urban runoff: a practical manual for planning and designing urban BMPs. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC.

Schueler, T.R., P.A. Kumble, and M.A. Heraty. 1992. A current assessment of urban best management practices - techniques for reducing non-point source pollution in the coastal zone. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Department of Environmental Programs, Anacostia Restoration Team, Washington, DC.

Shriver, W. G. 2002. Conservation ecology of salt marsh birds in New England. Ph.D. Dissertation. State University of New York, Syracuse, New York.

Smith, J. 1837. A description of New England. Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society Series 3, volume 6:95-140.

Spendelow, J. A. 1982. An analysis of temporal variation in, and the effects of habitat modification on, the reproductive success of roseate terns. Colonial Waterbirds 5:19–31.

Swain, Patricia C., and Jennifer B. Kearsley. 2000. Classification of the Natural Communities of Massachusetts . Draft. Westborough, MA: Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program.

Taylor, J. 1998. Guidance for meeting U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service trust resource needs when conducting coastal marsh management for mosquito control on Region 5 National Wildlife Refuges. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 5, Hadley, Massachusetts. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. April 2005. Interim mosquito guidance. 18 pp.

Taylor, J., T. D. Thomas, and L. F. McCarthy. 1996. New Hampshire’s living legacy: the biodiversity of the granite state. New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, Concord, New Hampshire.

The Nature Conservancy. Draft 1999. North Atlantic Coast Ecoregional Conservation Plan, The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia.

----. In press. Element stewarship abstract for Phragmites australis, common reed. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia. http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/documnts/phraaus.html

Thunhorst, G., and D. R. Biggs. 1993. Wetland planting guide for the Northeastern United States , Environmental Concern, Inc. 179 pp.

Treat, C., K. Kleese, and C. Neill. 2003. Effects of controlled burns on soil nutrients and respiration: Implications for possible sandplain grassland restoration on Martha’s Vineyard. Marine Biological Lab Research Paper. Http://courses.mbl.edu/ses/data/project/2003/treat.pdf

90 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

LITERATURE CITED

U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2004. Official Soil Series Descriptions . Available at http://ortho.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/cgi-bin/osd/osdname.cgi.

-----. 2006. Soil Survey of Essex County, Massachusetts. Web Soil Survey 1.1. Available at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996a. Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) , Atlantic Coast population, revised recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, Massachusetts.

-----. 1996b. Protecting Wetland for Fish and Wildlife: a framework for the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Role in wetland regulatory programs. www.r6. fws .gov/pfw/r6pfw2c.htm

-----. 1999. Fulfilling the promise: the national wildlife refuge system. U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Arlington, Virginia.

------. 2003. Biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. USFWS Policy 601 FW3. USFWS, Arlington, Virginia.

------. 2004. A blueprint for the future of migratory birds: migratory bird program strategic plan 2004- 2014. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia.

-----. 2004b. Interim Guidance for Mosquito Management on National Wildlife Refuges. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia.

-----. 2006. Annual Habitat Work Plan for Parker River National Wildlife Refuge. Parker River NWR, Newburyport, Massachusetts.

Vickery, P. 2002. Effects of prescribed fire on the reproductive ecology of northern blazing star Liatris scariosa var. novae-angliae . American Midland Naturalist, 148:20-27.

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. 2006. Aquatic Resources Trust Fund Phragmites australis control in eastern Virginia—Year 3 Final Report. Natural Heritage Technical Report 06-12. VA Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage. 16 pp.

Wagner, D. L., M. W. Nelson, and D. F. Schweitzer. 2003. Shrubland Lepidoptera of southern New England and southeastern New York: ecology, conservation, and management. Forest Ecology and Management, 185: 95-112.

Weare, Nancy V. 1996. Plum Island: The Way It Was . 2nd edition. Newburyport, MA: Newburyport Press

Wells, J. V. and K. V. Rosenberg. 1999. Grassland bird conservation in northeastern North America. Studies in Avian Biology. 19:72-80.

Westveld, M., R. I. Ashman, H. I. Baldwin, R. P. Holdsworth, R. S. Johnson, J. H. Lambert, H. J. Lutz, L. C. Swain, and M. Standish. 1956. Natural forest vegetation zones of New England. Journal of Forestry, 54:332-338.

Wetmore, T. Recent bird sightings from Plum Island. http://bartonstreet.com/tom/birds/pisightings.html

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 91 LITERATURE CITED

Wheelwright, N. T. and J. D. Rising. 1993. Savannah sparrow ( Passerculus sandwichensis ). In The Birds of North America, No. 45 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.

Wilcove, D. S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. BioScience 48:607-615.

Wolfe, R. 1996. Effects of open water marsh management on selected tidal marsh resources: a review. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association. 12(4): 701-712.

Wolfe, R. and P. Capotosto. 1998. Integrated marsh management: a holistic approach to wetlands management in Connecticut (abstract). Proceedings of the Northeastern Mosquito Control Association, 44: 13.

92 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

APPENDICES

Appendix A List of Preparers

Lead Authors Nancy Pau Refuge Operation Specialist Parker River NWR

Ellen Snyder Contracted Planner Ibis Wildlife Consulting

Contributing Authors Deborah Melvin Cooperators Supervisory Wildlife Biologist Parker River NWR

Janet Kennedy (Former Refuge Manager) Refuge Supervisor North, Region 5

Frank Drauszewski Deputy Refuge Manager Parker River NWR

Jan Taylor Regional Biologist Northeast Region 5

Biologists from Gulf of Maine Coastal Refuges This document was written in collaboration with biologists and managers from several coastal refuges in New England. The goals, objectives, rationals, and strategies were developed as a team, and then refined for each Refuge. Biologists from Rachel Carson, Monomoy, Great Meadows, Petit Manan, and Silvio O. Conte Refuges conducted extensive literature reviews for best management practices, and contributed significantly to the development of objectives and strategies in this HMP.

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 93 APPENDICES

Appendix B Habitat Classifications

Habitat Definition A National Goals Team was created to develop a process for implementing wildlife and habitat recommendations of Fulfilling the Promise (USFWS 1999a). In a draft report (Czech and Murphy 2003), the Team crafted the following “habitat” definitions:

1) The suite of biotic and abiotic resources used by a species during the course of its natural history. For animal species, these resources generally include food, water, cover, space, and special, species-specific resources necessary for survival and reproduction (e.g., nesting cavities for cavity-nesting birds) or conducive to health and vigor (e.g., mineral deposits for ungulates). For plant species, these resources generally include soils, water, topography, and special species-specific resources necessary for survival and reproduction (e.g., pollinators for flowering plants) or conducive to health and vigor (e.g., cryptogrammic soils for legumes).

2) A vegetative community or physiographically categorizable area serving as a conglomerate of species-specific habitats. For example, a “ponderosa pine forest habitat” in the Southwest typically includes the biotic and abiotic features conducive to supporting ponderosa pine, cliffrose, Arizona fescue, elk, wild turkey, timber rattlesnakes, and other species. Used in this sense, habitat is roughly synonymous with “habitat type,” “plant community,” and “ecosystem,” depending upon context. It may be used at any level of detail coarser than species-specific. For example, one may refer to the various associations, formations, or even classes of the National Vegetation Classification System as “habitats.”

Vegetation Classifications Ecologists and biologists describe and map vegetation patterns (i.e., “habitats”) using a variety of classification systems. These systems differ in their scale of application and purposes. Refuges are developing a consistent methodology for classifying habitats that enables managers and biologists to identify management units at a fine scale as well as describe a refuge’s role in the regional landscape.

The National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS) was established as the standard classification framework for vegetation by federal agencies in the United States. The USFWS is using the NVCS, a seven level hierarchical system developed by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Natural Heritage Network in the 1990s, to map habitats on National Wildlife Refuges. NVCS is based on existing vegetation and classifies “natural” vegetation types, although it can be used to classify human- modified lands. Aerial photo interpretation and ground truthing are used to map vegetation to the “Alliance” level in the NVCS. Fine scale mapping to the “Association” level often requires more intensive field survey (Maybury 1999).

Mapping vegetation patterns with a consistent classification system (i.e., NVCS) provides the foundation for evaluating inventory, monitoring, and management programs over time and across regions. These programs may include searches for federally endangered species, locating long-term monitoring plots, monitoring restoration efforts, tracking long-term vegetation changes, as well as enabling the roll-up of these data into a regional or national summary (Maybury, 1999). For a comparison of NVCS to other vegetation classification systems see Grossman et al. (1998).

94 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

APPENDICES

Ecological Systems NatureServe defines an Ecological System as a natural group of plant associations occurring together on the ground, unified by the same set of ecological processes, substrates, and environmental gradients. The NVCS groups associations into alliances based on the common dominant or diagnostic plant species regardless of whether they may co-occur on the landscape. In contrast, ecological systems are groupings of NVCS associations or alliances that are found together. Rather than hierarchical, there is a set of ecological system types. They are intended to provide a classification unit that can be mapped more readily from remote imagery, yet are easily identifiable by resource managers in the field (Comer et al. 2003).

Associations can belong to more than one Ecological System. Highly altered vegetation is not defined as a System, but as a cover type. Aquatic systems are not yet defined in Ecological Systems. Because Ecological Systems are based on Associations in the NVCS, they conform to the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FDGC). NVCS is a taxonomic system not specifically designed for mapping, so aggregating associations into system units addresses mapping challenges presented by the predominantly forested New England region. Many forest Alliances are roughly equivalent to the Society of American Foresters (SAF) cover types.

Landscape-Scale Classification Systems The physical environment, expressed through climate, geology, topography or landform and soils, explains much about the patterns and distribution of biological diversity. These patterns describe natural divisions, called biophysical or ecological regions, that inform our efforts to understand, conserve, and manage biodiversity. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has divided the continental United States into 63 ecoregions, large geographic areas that share similar geologic, topographic, ecological, and climatic characteristics. These ecoregions are modified from the U.S. Forest Service “Bailey” System (Bailey 1995).

Partners in Flight (PIF) uses physiographic areas as its spatial planning unit. Under the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI), PIF, North American Waterfowl Management Plan, U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, and the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan Initiatives worked together to develop a standard map of planning regions to enhance communication and enable integrated bird conservation. Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) now serve as the common spatial unit for all bird conservation. BCRs are ecologically distinct regions in North America with similar bird communities, habitats, and resource management issues. They can be partitioned into smaller ecological units or aggregated depending on the scale of conservation planning.

Refuges play a critical but sometimes limited role in wildlife conservation in many ecosystems. One way to optimize the goals and objectives on a particular refuge is to view it in a broader (landscape) context and in concert with the efforts of other public and private natural resource management partners (Czech and Murphy 2003). Ecoregions and BCR and PIF regions provide a consistent ecological framework and enable partners to generate a regional and national synopsis.

Ecological Land Units Ecological Land Units (ELUs) is a system of land classification developed by TNC that characterizes the land based on three physical factors that influence the type of plant communities that may be found there—elevation, bedrock geology, and topography (Publicover and Weihrauch 2003). TNC’s ecological land units are not part of the ecoregion hierarchical framework, but rather it is a GIS mapping tool to depict the underlying features that determine vegetation patterns and one measure of site capability.

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 95 APPENDICES

Site Capability The National Land Cover Data (NLCD) and other cover type maps show current land use and vegetative cover. Although important, these maps need to be combined with “potential” or “natural” vegetation maps to depict the inherent potential of a site (Westveld et al. 1956, Kuchler 1964). Kuchler (1964) noted the importance of distinguishing between the vegetation that exists at the present time of observation and the potential natural vegetation that will occupy a site without disturbance or climatic change. Potential natural vegetation (or site capability) is based on the expression of environmental factors such as topography, soils, and climate. TNC’s Ecological Land Units (ELU) is a refinement of Kuchler’s units. Westveld et al. (1956) used a combination of present cover types in conjunction with their topographic position and knowledge of successional stages in forest growth to map natural vegetation zones of New England.

Literature Cited

Bailey, R. G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. Miscellaneous Publication Number 1391. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Washington, D.C.

Comer, P., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Evans, S. Gawler, C. Josse, G. Kittel, S. Menard, M. Pyne, M. Reid, K. Schultz, K. Snow, and J. Teague. 2003. Ecological Systems of the United States: A Working Classification of U.S. Terrestrial Systems. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia (http://www.natureserve.org/library/usEcologicalsystems.pdf ).

Czech, B., and K. Murphy, editors. Draft 2003. A process for integrating wildlife populations, biodiversity, and habitat goals and objectives on the national wildlife refuge system: coordinating with partners at all landscape scales. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Grossman, D. H., D. Faber-Langendoen, A. S. Weakly, M. Anderson, P. Bourgeron, R. Crawford, K. Goodin, S. Landaal, K. Metzler, K. Patterson, M. Pyne, M. Reid, L. Sneddon. 1998. International classification of ecological communities: terrestrial vegetation of the United States. Volume I. The national vegetation classification system: development, status, and applications. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia.

Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States. American Geographical Society, Special Publication No. 36, New York, NewYork.

Maybury, K. P., editor. 1999. Seeing the Forest and the Trees: Ecological Classification for Conservation. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia. (http://www.natureserve.org/library/seeingforest.pdf ).

Publicover, D., and D. Weihrauch. 2003. Ecological atlas of the upper Androscoggin River watershed. Appalachian Mountain Club, Boston, Massachusetts.

Westveld, M., R. I. Ashman, H. I. Baldwin, R. P. Holdsworth, R. S. Johnson, J. H. Lambert, H. J. Lutz, L. C. Swain, and M. Standish. 1956. Natural forest vegetation zones of New England. Journal of Forestry, 54:332-338.

96 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

APPENDICES

Appendix C Plant Species Found at Parker River NWR

Scientific Name Common Name Family Acer negundo Boxelder, ash-leaved maple ACERACEAE Acer rubrum Red maple ACERACEAE Acer saccharum Sugar-maple, hard maple ACERACEAE Yucca filamentosa Adam's needle AGAVACEAE Sagittaria latifolia Common arrow-head, wapato ALISMATACEAE Acnida cannabina Water-hemp AMARANTHACEAE Amaranthus albus Tumbleweed AMARANTHACEAE Amaranthus cannabinus Water-hemp AMARANTHACEAE Rhus copallinum Shining Sumac ANACARDIACEAE Rhus glabra Smooth Sumac ANACARDIACEAE Rhus typhina Staghorn sumac ANACARDIACEAE Toxicodendron radicans Common poison ivy ANACARDIACEAE Angelica lucida Seabeach-angelica APIACEAE Cicuta maculata Common water-hemlock APIACEAE Daucus carota Wild carrot; Queen Anne's lace APIACEAE Ligusticum scothicum Scotch lovage APIACEAE Apocynum androsaemifolium Spreading dogbane APOCYNACEAE Apocynum sibiricum Clasping dogbane APOCYNACEAE Ilex verticillata Winterberry AQUIFOLIACEAE Acorus calamus Sweet flag ARACEAE Arisaema triphyllum Jack-in-the-pulpit ARACEAE Aralia hispida Bristly sarsparilla ARALIACEAE Aralia nudicaulis Wild sarsparilla ARALIACEAE Aralia nudicaulis Wild sarsparilla ARALIACEAE Aristolochia macrophylla Dutchman's pipe ARISTOLOCHIACEAE Asclepias amplexicaulis Clasping milkweed ASCLEPIADACEAE Asclepias syriaca Common milkweed ASCLEPIADACEAE Athyrium filix-femina Lady-fern ASPLENIACEAE Thelypteris palustris Marsh-fern ASPLENIACEAE Thelypteris phegopteris Narrow or northern beech-fern ASPLENIACEAE Achillea millefolium Common yarrow ASTERACEAE Ambrosia artemisiifolia Common ragweed ASTERACEAE Antennaria neglecta Field-pussytoes ASTERACEAE Antennaria plantaginifolia Plantain-pussytoes ASTERACEAE Arctium minus Common burdock ASTERACEAE Artemisia campestris ssp. caudata Wormwood; Sage; Mugwort ASTERACEAE Artemisia stelleriana Beach-wormwood; Dusty mill ASTERACEAE Artemisia vulgaris Mugwort ASTERACEAE Aster ericoides Squarrose white aster ASTERACEAE Aster linariifolius Stiff aster ASTERACEAE Aster novi-belgii New York aster ASTERACEAE Aster subulatus Annual salt marsh aster ASTERACEAE

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 97 APPENDICES

Aster tenuifolius Perennial salt marsh aster ASTERACEAE Aster undulatus Clasping heart-leaved aster ASTERACEAE Bidens cernua Bur-marigold ASTERACEAE Bidens connata Purplestem beggar-ticks ASTERACEAE Bidens coronata Northern tickseed-sunflower ASTERACEAE Bidens frondosa Devil's beggar-ticks ASTERACEAE Centaurea jacea Brown knapweed ASTERACEAE Centaurea maculosa Spotted knapweed ASTERACEAE Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Ox-eye daisy ASTERACEAE Cichorium intybus Chicory ASTERACEAE Cirsium arvense Canada-thistle ASTERACEAE Cirsium horridulum Yellow-thistle ASTERACEAE Cirsium pumilum Pasture-thistle ASTERACEAE Cirsium vulgare Bull-thistle ASTERACEAE Conyza canadensis Horseweed ASTERACEAE Erechtites hieraciifolia Fireweed ASTERACEAE Erigeron annuus Annual fleabane ASTERACEAE Erigeron strigosus Rough fleabane ASTERACEAE Eupatorium dubium Three-nerved joe-pye weed ASTERACEAE Eupatorium perfoliatum Boneset ASTERACEAE Eupatorium purpureum Purple-node joe-pye weed ASTERACEAE Eupatroium maculatum Spotted joe-pye weed ASTERACEAE Euthamia graminifolia Common flat-topped goldenrod ASTERACEAE Euthamia tenuifolia Coastal plain flat-topped goldenrod ASTERACEAE Gnaphalium obtusifolium Fragrant cudweed ASTERACEAE Gnaphalium uliginosum Low cudweed ASTERACEAE Helianthus annuus Common sunflower ASTERACEAE Hieracium aurantiacum Orange-red king-devil ASTERACEAE Hieracium caespitosum Yellow king-devil ASTERACEAE Hieracium flagellare Whiplash-hawkweed ASTERACEAE Hieracium kalmii Canada hawkweed ASTERACEAE Hieracium piloselloides Glaucous king-devil ASTERACEAE Hieracium sabaudum Hawkweed ASTERACEAE Iva frutescens Maritime marsh elder ASTERACEAE Krigia virginica Virginia dwarf dandelioin ASTERACEAE Lactuca biennis Tall blue lettuce ASTERACEAE Lactuca canadensis Tall lettuce ASTERACEAE Leontodon autumnalis Fall-dandelion ASTERACEAE Matricaria matricarioides Pineapple-weed ASTERACEAE Pluchea odorata Marsh-fleabane ASTERACEAE Rudbeckia hirta Black-eyed Susan ASTERACEAE Senecio jacobaea Tansy-ragwort ASTERACEAE Solidago asperula ? ASTERACEAE Solidago canadensis Common goldenrod ASTERACEAE Solidago gigantea Smooth goldenrod ASTERACEAE Solidago gigantea x sempervirens? ASTERACEAE Solidago juncea Early goldenrod ASTERACEAE Solidago rugosa Wrinkle-leaved goldenrod ASTERACEAE

98 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

APPENDICES

Solidago sempervirens Seaside-goldenrod ASTERACEAE Sonchus arvensis Perennial sow-thistle ASTERACEAE Sonchus asper Prickly sow-thistle ASTERACEAE Tanacetum vulgare Common tansy ASTERACEAE Taraxacum officinale Common dandelion ASTERACEAE Tragopogon dubius Fistulous goat's beard ASTERACEAE Tragopogon pratensis Showy goat's beard ASTERACEAE Xanthium strumarium Common cocklebur ASTERACEAE Impatiens capensis Orange touch-me-not BALSAMINACEAE Berberis thunbergii Japanese barberry BERBERIDACEAE Berberis vulgaris Common or European barberry BERBERIDACEAE Alnus incana Speckled alder BETULACEAE Alnus serrulata Smooth alder BETULACEAE Betula nigra River or red birch BETULACEAE Betula papyrifera White or paper birch BETULACEAE Betula populifolia Gray birch BETULACEAE Arabis drummondi Rock-cress BRASSICACEAE Armoracia rusticana Horse-radish BRASSICACEAE Brassica kaber Charlock BRASSICACEAE Brassica nigra Black mustard BRASSICACEAE Brassica rapa BRASSICACEAE Cakile edentula Sea-rocket BRASSICACEAE Lepidium campestre Field-cress BRASSICACEAE Lepidium latifolium Perennial pepperweed BRASSICACEAE Lepidium virginicum Poor man's pepper BRASSICACEAE Raphanus raphanistrum Jointed charlock BRASSICACEAE Rorippa palustris Common yellow-cress BRASSICACEAE Sisymbrium altissimum Tumbling mustard BRASSICACEAE Thlaspi arvense Field penny-cress BRASSICACEAE Viburnum dentatum Arrow-wood CAPRIFOLIACEAE Viburnum nudum CAPRIFOLIACEAE Lonicera morrowi Morrow's honeysuckle CARPRIFOLIACEAE Sambucus canadensis Common elder CARPRIFOLIACEAE Viburnum dentatum var. lucidum Arrow wood CARPRIFOLIACEAE Viburnum opulus CARPRIFOLIACEAE Arenaria lateriflora Sandwort CARYOPHYLLACEAE Arenaria serpyllifolia Thyme-leaved sandwort CARYOPHYLLACEAE Cerastium vulgatum Mouse-ear chickweed CARYOPHYLLACEAE Dianthus armeria Deptford-pink CARYOPHYLLACEAE Dianthus deltoides Maiden-pink CARYOPHYLLACEAE Gerastium viscosum Clammy chickweed CARYOPHYLLACEAE Gerastium vulgatum Mouse ear chickweed CARYOPHYLLACEAE Honckenya peploides CARYOPHYLLACEAE Lychnis flos-cuculi Ragged robin CARYOPHYLLACEAE Moehringia laterifolia Grove sandwort CARYOPHYLLACEAE Sagina procumbens Pearlwort CARYOPHYLLACEAE Saponaria officinalis Soapwort CARYOPHYLLACEAE Scleranthus annuus Annual knawel CARYOPHYLLACEAE

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 99 APPENDICES

Silene antirrhina Catchfly, campion CARYOPHYLLACEAE Silene dichotoma Catchfly, campion CARYOPHYLLACEAE Silene latifolia White campion, white cockle CARYOPHYLLACEAE Silene vulgaris Bladder-campion CARYOPHYLLACEAE Spergularia canadensis Northern sand-spurrey CARYOPHYLLACEAE Spergularia marina Salt-marsh sand-spurrey CARYOPHYLLACEAE Spergularia rubra Roadside sand-spurrey CARYOPHYLLACEAE Stellaria graminea Common stitchwort CARYOPHYLLACEAE Stellaria longifolia Long-leaved stitchwort CARYOPHYLLACEAE Celastrus orbiculatus Oriental bittersweet CELASTRACEAE Celastrus scandens American bittersweet CELASTRACEAE Atriplex arenaria Seabeach orache CHENOPODIACEAE Atriplex hastata Orache CHENOPODIACEAE Atriplex patula Spearscale CHENOPODIACEAE Bassia hirsuta CHENOPODIACEAE Chenopodium album Lamb's quarters, Pigweed CHENOPODIACEAE Chenopodium leptophyllum Goosefoot, Pigweed CHENOPODIACEAE Chenopodium rubrum Alkali-blite CHENOPODIACEAE Salicornia bigelovii Dwarf glasswort CHENOPODIACEAE Salicornia europaea Samphire CHENOPODIACEAE Salsola kali Saltwort CHENOPODIACEAE Suaeda linearis Southern sea-blite CHENOPODIACEAE Suaeda maritima White sea-blite CHENOPODIACEAE Suaeda richii Sea blite CHENOPODIACEAE Helianthemum canadense Frostweed CISTACEAE Hudsonia tomentosa False heather CISTACEAE Lechea maritima Pinweed CISTACEAE Hypericum boreale St. John's-wort CLUSIACEAE Hypericum gentianoides Orange-grass CLUSIACEAE Hypericum majus St. John's-wort CLUSIACEAE Hypericum perforatum Common St. John's wort CLUSIACEAE Triadenum virginicum Marsh St. John's wort CLUSIACEAE Commelina communis Common dayflower COMMELINACEAE Tradescantia virginiana Virginia spiderwort; widow's tears COMMELINACEAE Calystegia sepium Hedge-bindweed CONVOLVULACEAE Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed CONVOLVULACEAE Cornus stolonifera Red-osier dogwood CORNACEAE Nyssa sylvatica Black tupelo, black gum CORNACEAE Sedum purpureum Live forever CRASSULACEAE Cuscuta gronovii Common dodder CUSCUTACEAE Bulbostylis capillaris CYPERACEAE Carex argyrantha Sedge CYPERACEAE Carex comosa Sedge CYPERACEAE Carex crinita Sedge CYPERACEAE Carex nigromarginata Sedge CYPERACEAE Carex paleacea Salt marsh sedge CYPERACEAE Carex pensylvanica Sedge CYPERACEAE Carex projecta Sedge CYPERACEAE

100 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

APPENDICES

Carex scoparia Sedge CYPERACEAE Carex silicea Sedge CYPERACEAE Carex stipata Sedge CYPERACEAE Carex straminea Sedge CYPERACEAE Carex swanii Sedge CYPERACEAE Cyperus dentatus Flatsedge CYPERACEAE Cyperus erythrorhizos Redroot flatsedge CYPERACEAE Cyperus filicinis Flatsedge CYPERACEAE Cyperus filiculmis Flatsedge CYPERACEAE Cyperus grayi Flatsedge CYPERACEAE Cyperus strigosus False nutsedge CYPERACEAE Eleocharis ovata Blunt spike-rush CYPERACEAE Eleocharis palustris Spike-rush CYPERACEAE Eleocharis parvula Spike-rush CYPERACEAE Scirpus americanus Olney-threesquare CYPERACEAE Scirpus atrovirens Black bulrush CYPERACEAE Scirpus cyperinus Wool-grass CYPERACEAE Scirpus maritimus Alkali-bulrush CYPERACEAE Scirpus pungens CYPERACEAE Scirpus validus Softstem bullrush CYPERACEAE Drosera intermedia Sundew DROSERACEAE Drosera rotundifolia Sundew DROSERACEAE Elaeagnus umbellata Autumn olive ELAEAGNACEAE Equisetum arvense Common or field horsetail EQUISETACEAE Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Bearberry ERICACEAE Gaylussacia baccata Black huckleberry ERICACEAE Kalmia angustifolia Sheep-laurel ERICACEAE Lyonia ligustrina Male-berry ERICACEAE Vaccinium angustifolium Common lowbush-blueberry ERICACEAE Vaccinium corymbosum Highbush-blueberry ERICACEAE Vaccinium macrocarpon Cranberry ERICACEAE Vaccinium pallidum Hillside-blueberry ERICACEAE Vaccinium pennylvanicum ? ERICACEAE Euphorbia cyparissias Cypress spurge EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia esula Leafy spurge EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia polygonifolia Seaside-spurge EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia supina? EUPHORBIACEAE Apios americana Common ground-nut FABACEAE Bicia cracca Bird vetch FABACEAE Chamaecrista fasciculata Patridge-pea, Locust-weed FABACEAE Dalea leporina Hare's-foot dalea FABACEAE Lathyrus maritimus Beach pea FABACEAE Lespedeza capitata Bush-clover FABACEAE Lotus corniculatus Birdsfoot-trefoil FABACEAE Lucerne alfalfa Alfalfa FABACEAE Medicago lupulina Black medick FABACEAE Melilotus alba White sweet clover FABACEAE Melilotus officinalis Yellow sweet clover FABACEAE

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 101 APPENDICES

Robinia pseudoacacia Black locust FABACEAE Trifolium arvense Rabbit-foot clover FABACEAE Trifolium aureum Palmate hop-clover FABACEAE Trifolium campestre Pinnate hop-clover FABACEAE Trifolium hybridum Alsike clover FABACEAE Trifolium pratense Red clover FABACEAE Trifolium repens White clover FABACEAE Vicia cracca Bird-vetch FABACEAE Vicia dasycarpa Wooly-pod vetch FABACEAE Vicia tetrasperma Four-seed vetch FABACEAE Vicia villosa Hairy vetch FABACEAE Quercus rubra Northern red oak FAGACEAE Quercus velutina Black oak FAGACEAE Fucus vesiculosis rockweed FUCACEAE Centaurium erythraea Forking centaury GENTIANACEAE Geranium dissectum Wild geranium GERANIACEAE Geranium maculatum Wild geranium GERANIACEAE Geranium robertianum Herb-Robert GERANIACEAE Ribes hirtellum Gooseberry GROSSULARIACEAE Ribes sativum Garden red currant GROSSULARIACEAE Myriophyllum humile Water milfoil HALORAGACEAE Iris prismatica Slender blue flag IRIDACEAE Iris psuedacorus Water-flag IRIDACEAE Iris versicolor Northern blue flag IRIDACEAE Sisyrinchium montanum Blue-eyed grass IRIDACEAE Carya ovata Shagbark-hickory JUGLANDACEAE Juncus acuminatus Rush JUNCACEAE Juncus arcticus Wire-rush JUNCACEAE Juncus articulatus Rush JUNCACEAE Juncus bufonius Toad-rush JUNCACEAE Juncus canadensis Rush JUNCACEAE Juncus effusus Soft rush JUNCACEAE Juncus gerardii Black grass JUNCACEAE Juncus greenei Rush JUNCACEAE Juncus tenuis Path-rush JUNCACEAE Luzula muliflora Wood-rush JUNCACEAE Triglochin maritimum Common arrow-grass JUNCAGINACEAE Galeopsis tetrahit Hemp-nettle LAMIACEAE Glechoma hederacea Gill-over-the-ground LAMIACEAE Leonorus cardiaca Motherwort; lion's tail LAMIACEAE Lycopus americanus American water-horehound LAMIACEAE Lycopus amplectens Water-horehound LAMIACEAE Lycopus asper Western water-horehound LAMIACEAE Lycopus europaeus European water-horehound LAMIACEAE Lycopus uniflorus Northern water-horehound LAMIACEAE Lycopus virginicus Virginia water-horehound LAMIACEAE Nepeta cataria Catnip LAMIACEAE Prunella vulgaris Self-heal LAMIACEAE

102 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

APPENDICES

Scutellaria galericulata Marsh-skullcap LAMIACEAE Teucrium canadense American germander LAMIACEAE Trichostema dichotomum Blue curls LAMIACEAE Sassafras albidum Sassafras LAURACEAE Lemna minor Lesser duckweed LEMNACEAE Allium vineale Field garlic, Scallions LILIACEAE Asparagus officinalis Asparagus LILIACEAE Convallaria majalis LILIACEAE Hemerocallis fulva Day-lily LILIACEAE Lilium lancifolium Tiger-lily LILIACEAE Lilium philadelphicum Wood-lily LILIACEAE Maianthemum canadense Canada mayflower LILIACEAE Polygonatum pubescens Solomon's seal LILIACEAE Smilacina stellata False Solomon's seal LILIACEAE Lycopodium inundatum Bog-clubmoss LYCOPODIACEAE Lythrum hyssopifolia Annual loosestrife LYTHRACEAE Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife LYTHRACEAE Lythrum salicaria var. tomentosa Purple loosestrife LYTHRACEAE Mollugo verticillata Carpet-weed MOLLUGINACEAE Comptonia peregrina Sweet fern MYRICACEAE Myrica gale Sweet gale MYRICACEAE Myrica pensylvanica Northern bayberry MYRICACEAE Forsythia viridissima OLEACEAE Fraxinus pennsylvanica Ash OLEACEAE Syringa vulgaris Lilac OLEACEAE Circaea alpina Alpine enchanter's nightshade ONAGRACEAE Epilobium angustifolium Fireweed ONAGRACEAE Epilobium glandulosum Northern willow-herb ONAGRACEAE Ludwigia palustris Common water-purslane ONAGRACEAE Oenothera biennis Common evening primrose ONAGRACEAE Oenothera parviflora Small-flowered evening primrose ONAGRACEAE Oenothera perennis Little sundrops ONAGRACEAE Calopogon tuberosus Grass-pink ORCHIDACEAE Epipactis helleborine Helleborine ORCHIDACEAE Habenaria lacera Ragged fringed orchid ORCHIDACEAE Osmunda claytoniana Interrupted fern OSMUNDACEAE Osmunda regalis Royal fern OSMUNDACEAE Oxalis stricta Common yellow wood-sorrel OXALIDACEAE Phytolacca americana Pokeweed; pokeberry PHYTOLACCACEAE Pinus resinosa Red pine; Norway pine PINACEAE Pinus rigida Pitch-pine PINACEAE Pinus strobus White pine PINACEAE Pinus thunbergii Black pine PINACEAE Plantagao hastata erected plantain PLANTAGINACEAE Plantago aristata Buckhorn PLANTAGINACEAE Plantago lanceolata English plantain; ribgrass PLANTAGINACEAE Plantago major Common plantain PLANTAGINACEAE Plantago maritima Seaside-plantain PLANTAGINACEAE

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 103 APPENDICES

Limonium carolinianum Sea-lavender PLUMBAGINACEAE Agropyron cristatum Crested wheatgrass POACEAE Agrostis capillaris Rhode Island bent POACEAE Agrostis gigantea Redtop POACEAE Agrostis hyemalis var. scabra Ticklegrass POACEAE Agrostis perennans Autumn-bent POACEAE Ammophila breviligulata Beach-grass POACEAE Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet vernal grass POACEAE Aristida longespica Slimspike three-awn POACEAE Aristida tuberculosa Three-awn, Annual needlegrass POACEAE Bromus hordeaceus Soft chess POACEAE Bromus inermis Smooth-brome POACEAE Bromus secalinus Cheat; chess POACEAE Bromus tectorum Junegrass; Downy chess POACEAE Calamagrostis canadensis Bluejoint POACEAE Dactylis glomerata Orchard-grass POACEAE Danthonia spicata Poverty-oatgrass POACEAE Deschampsia cespitosa Tufted hairgrass POACEAE Deschampsia flexuosa Hairgrass POACEAE Digitaria ischaemum Smooth crab-grass POACEAE Digitaria sanguinalis Northern crab-grass POACEAE Distichlis spicata Salt-grass POACEAE Echinochloa crusgalli Barnyard-grass POACEAE Echinochloa muricata Barnyard-grass POACEAE Elymus villosus Downy wild rye POACEAE Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye POACEAE Elytrigia repens Quack-grass POACEAE Festuca elatior Tall or alta-fescue POACEAE Festuca filiformis Fescue POACEAE Festuca octoflora? POACEAE Festuca ovina Sheep fescue POACEAE Festuca rubra Red fescue POACEAE Festuca subverticillata Nodding fescue POACEAE Festuca trachyphylla Hard fescue POACEAE Galamagrostis sp. POACEAE Glyceria grandis American mannagrass POACEAE Glyceria x laxa Mannagrass POACEAE Hierochloe odorata Sweet grass POACEAE Hordeum jubatum Foxtail barley POACEAE Lolium perenne Ryegrass POACEAE Panicum columbianum Panic-grass POACEAE Panicum depauperatum Panic-grass POACEAE Panicum dichotomiflorum Spreading witch grass POACEAE Panicum lanuginosum Panic-grass POACEAE Panicum linearifolium Panic-grass POACEAE Panicum virgatum Panic-grass POACEAE Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary-grass POACEAE Phleum pratense Timothy POACEAE

104 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

APPENDICES

Phragmites australis Common reed POACEAE Poa annua Speargrass POACEAE Poa compressa Canada-bluegrass POACEAE Poa pratensis Kentucky-bluegrass POACEAE Puccinellia distans European alkali-grass POACEAE Puccinellia fasciculata POACEAE Puccinellia maritima Seaside alkali-grass POACEAE Schizachyrium scoparium Little bluestem POACEAE Secale cereale Rye POACEAE Setaria geniculata Knotroot-foxtail-grass POACEAE Setaria glauca Yellow foxtail-grass POACEAE Setaria viridis Green foxtail-grass POACEAE Spartina alterniflora Smooth cord-grass POACEAE Spartina patens Salt meadow cord-grass POACEAE Spartina pectinata Prairie cord-grass POACEAE Sporobolus asper Tall dropseed POACEAE Vulpia octoflora Six-weeks fescue POACEAE Zizania aquatica Wild rice POACEAE Polygala sanguinea Blood-milkwort POLYGALACEAE Fagopyrum esculentum Buckwheat POLYGONACEAE Polygonella articulata Jointweed POLYGONACEAE Polygonum aviculare Knotweed, knotgrass POLYGONACEAE Polygonum cilinode Fringed bindweed POLYGONACEAE Polygonum convolvulus Black bindweed POLYGONACEAE Japanese knotwood; Mexican Polygonum cuspidatum bamboo POLYGONACEAE Polygonum lapathifolium Dock-leaved smartweed POLYGONACEAE Polygonum pennsylvanicum Pennsylvania smartweed POLYGONACEAE Polygonum persicaria Lady's thumb POLYGONACEAE Polygonum prolificum Knotweed, knotgrass POLYGONACEAE Polygonum ramosissimum Knotweed, knotgrass POLYGONACEAE Polygonum scandens False buckwheat POLYGONACEAE Polygunum punctatum Dotted smartweed POLYGONACEAE Rumex acetosella Red sorrel POLYGONACEAE Rumex crispus Curly dock POLYGONACEAE Rumex maritimus Golden dock POLYGONACEAE Rumex pallidus Seabeach-dock POLYGONACEAE Rumex salicifolius Dock, sorrel POLYGONACEAE Pteridum aquilinum Bracken fern POLYPODIACEAE Potamogeton oakesianus Oake's pondweed POTAMOGETONACEAE Potamogeton pectinatus Sago-pondweed POTAMOGETONACEAE Potamogeton perfoliatus Redhead-grass POTAMOGETONACEAE Potamogeton pusillus Slender pondweed POTAMOGETONACEAE Potamogeton richardsonii Pondweed POTAMOGETONACEAE Anagallis arvensis Pimpernel PRIMULACEAE Glaux maritima Sea-milkwort PRIMULACEAE Lysimachia ciliata Fringed loosestrife PRIMULACEAE Lysimachia quadrifolia Whorled loosestrife PRIMULACEAE Lysimachia terrestris Bulbil-loosestrife PRIMULACEAE

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 105 APPENDICES

Trientalis borealis Starflower PRIMULACEAE Anemone cylindrica Long-headed anemone RANUNCULACEAE Clematis virginiana Virgin's bower RANUNCULACEAE Paeonia lactiflora Peony RANUNCULACEAE Ranunculus abortivus Small-flowered crowfoot RANUNCULACEAE Ranunculus acris Common or meadow-buttercup RANUNCULACEAE Ranunculus bulbosus Bulbous buttercup RANUNCULACEAE Ranunculus cymbalaria Seaside crowfoot RANUNCULACEAE Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup RANUNCULACEAE Ranunculus scleratus Cursed crowfoot RANUNCULACEAE Thalictrum pubescens Tall meadow-rue RANUNCULACEAE Frangula alnus Glossy buckthorn RHAMNACEAE Rhamnus frangula European alder-buckthorn RHAMNACEAE Shadbush; Serviceberry; Amelanchier canadensis Juneberry ROSACEAE Amelanchier laevis Smooth serviceberry ROSACEAE Amelanchier sanguinea New England serviceberry ROSACEAE Amelanchier spicata Dwarf serviceberry ROSACEAE Aronia arbutifolia Red chokeberry ROSACEAE Aronia melanocarpa Black chokeberry ROSACEAE Crataegus chrysocarpa Fireberry-hawthorn ROSACEAE Fragaria virginiana Thick-leaved wild strawberry ROSACEAE Geum canadense White avens ROSACEAE Potentilla anserina Silver-weed ROSACEAE Potentilla argentea Silvery five-fingers ROSACEAE Potentilla arguta Tall potentilla ROSACEAE Potentilla canadensis Running five-fingers ROSACEAE Potentilla egedei Marsh Cinqefoil ROSACEAE Potentilla norvegica Strawberry-weed ROSACEAE Potentilla recta Sulfur five-fingers ROSACEAE Potentilla simplex Old field five-fingers ROSACEAE Potentilla tridentata Mountain white potentilla ROSACEAE Prunus maritima Beach-plum ROSACEAE Prunus pensylvanica Pin-cherry ROSACEAE Prunus serotina Wild black cherry ROSACEAE Prunus virginiana Choke-cherry ROSACEAE Pyrus communis Pear ROSACEAE Pyrus malus Apple ROSACEAE Rosa carolina Pasture-rose ROSACEAE Rosa multiflora Multiflora-rose ROSACEAE Rosa palustris Swamp-rose ROSACEAE Rosa rugosa Japanese rose ROSACEAE Rosa virginiana Virginia-rose ROSACEAE Rubus allegheniensis Common blackberry ROSACEAE Rubus flagellaris Northern dewberry ROSACEAE Rubus hispidus Swamp-dewberry ROSACEAE Rubus ideaeus Red raspberry ROSACEAE Rubus pensilvanicus Pennsylvania-blackberry ROSACEAE Rubus recurvicaulis Blanchard's dewberry ROSACEAE

106 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

APPENDICES

Rubus sererus ROSACEAE Rubus setosus Bristly blackberry ROSACEAE Sanguisorba canadensis American burnet ROSACEAE Sorbus aucuparia European mountain-ash ROSACEAE Spiraea alba var. latifolia Meadowsweet ROSACEAE Spiraea tomentosa Hardhack, steeplebush ROSACEAE Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush RUBIACEAE Galium aparine Cleavers RUBIACEAE Galium palustre Marsh bedstraw RUBIACEAE Galium tinctorium Southern three-lobed bedstraw RUBIACEAE Galium trifolorum Sweet scented bedstraw RUBIACEAE Gallium mollugo Wild Madder RUBIACEAE Hedyotis caerulea Bluets RUBIACEAE Ruppia maritima Ditch-grass, widgeon-grass RUPPIACEAE Populus alba White or silver poplar SALICACEAE Populus grandidentata Big-toothed aspen SALICACEAE Populus tremuloides Aspen; quaking aspen SALICACEAE Salix alba White willow SALICACEAE Salix atrocinera Rusty Willow SALICACEAE Salix babylonica Weeping willow SALICACEAE Salix bebbiana Beaked willow SALICACEAE Salix candida Sage-leaved willow SALICACEAE Salix discolor Pussy-willow SALICACEAE Salix eriocephala Diamond-willow SALICACEAE Salix lucida Shining willow SALICACEAE Salix nigra Black willow SALICACEAE Salix sericea Silky willow SALICACEAE Agalinis maritima Salt-marsh agalinis SCROPHULARIACEAE Agalinis purpurea Smooth agalinis SCROPHULARIACEAE Linaria canadensis Annual toadflax SCROPHULARIACEAE Linaria vulgaris Butter and eggs SCROPHULARIACEAE Lindernia dubia False pimpernel SCROPHULARIACEAE Verbascum thapsus Common mullein SCROPHULARIACEAE Veronica officinalis Common speedwell SCROPHULARIACEAE Ailanthus altissima Tree of heaven SIMAROUBACEAE Smilax herbacea Catbrier SMILACAEAE Smilax rotundifolia Catbrier SMILACAEAE Datura stramonium Jimson-weed SOLANACEAE Datura wrightii Indian apple SOLANACEAE Solanum dulcamara Bittersweet SOLANACEAE Solanum nigrum Black nightshade SOLANACEAE Sparganium sp. Bur-reed SPARGANIACEAE Styrax americanus American snowbell STYRACACEAE Tilia americana Basswood, linden TILIACEAE Typha angustifolia Narrow-leaved cat-tail TYPHACEAE Typha latifolia Common cat-tail TYPHACEAE Celtis occidentalis Northern hackberry ULMACEAE Ulmus americana White or American elm ULMACEAE

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 107 APPENDICES

Urtica dioica Nettle, stinging nettle URTICACEAE Verbena hastata Common vervain VERBENACEAE Viola lanceolata Strap-leaved violet VIOLACEAE Viola sagittata Arrowhead-violet VIOLACEAE Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia-creeper; woodbine VITACEAE Vitis labrusca Fox-grape VITACEAE Vitis riparia Frost-grape VITACEAE Vitis sp. Grape VITACEAE Xyris torta Yellow-eyed grass XYRIDACEAE Zostera marina Eel-grass ZOSTERACEAE

108 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

APPENDICES

Appendix D Non-bird Animal Species of Parker River Compiled by Steve Haydock 2003 and Updated December 2006

REPTILES

RM@OOHMFSTQSKDR'E`lhkx,Bgdkxcqhc`d(
____ Common Snapping Turtle, Chelydra serpentina

ONMCSTQSKDR'E`lhkx,Dlxchc`d(
____ Painted Turtle, Chrysemys picta

G@QLKDRRRM@JDR'E`lhkx,Bnktaqhc`d( ____ Ringneck Snake, Diadophis punctatus ____ Smooth Green Snake, Liochlorophis vernalis ____ Brown Snake, Storeria dekayi ____ Common Garter Snake, Thamnophis sirtalis

AMPHIBIANS

KtmfkdrrR`k`l`mcdqr'E`lhkx,Okdsgncnmshc`d( ____ Northern Redback Salamander, Plethodon cinereus

Ro`cdennsSn`cr'E`lhkx,Odkna`shc`d( ____ Eastern Spadefoot, Scaphiopus holbrookii T

SqtdSn`cr'E`lhkx,Atenmhc`d(
____ American Toad, Bufo americanus

SqtdSqddeqnfr'E`lhkx,Gxkhc`d(
____ Spring Peeper, Pseudacris crucifer

SqtdEqnfr'E`lhkx,Q`mhc`d( ____ Bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana ____ Wood Frog, Rana sylvatica

BUTTERFLIES

RV@KKNVS@HKR'E`lhkx,O`ohkhnmhc`d(
____ Black Swallowtail, Papilio polyxenes ____ Eastern Tiger Swallowtail, Papilio glaucus ____ Spicebush Swallowtail, Papilio troilus

VGHSDR+RTKOGTQR'E`lhkx,Ohdqhc`d( ____ Cabbage White, Pieris rapae ____ Clouded Sulphur, Colias philodice ____ Orange Sulphur, Colias eurytheme

FNRR@LDQ,VHMFR'E`lhkx,Kxb`dmhc`d( ____ American Copper, Lycaena phlaeas ____ Bronze Copper, Lycaena hyllus ____ Coral Hairstreak, Satyrium titus

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 109 APPENDICES

____ Henry’s Elfin, Callophrys henrici ____ Juniper Hairstreak, Callophrys gryneus ____ Gray Hairstreak, Strymon melinus ____ Eastern Tailed-Blue, Everes comyntas ____ Spring Azure, Celastrina ladon
AQTRGENNSR'E`lhkx,Mxlog`khc`d( ____ Variegated Fritillary, Euptoieta claudia ____ Silver-bordered Fritillary, Boloria selene ____ Pearl Crescent, Phyciodes tharos ____ Question Mark, Polygonia interrogationis ____ Eastern Comma, Polygonia comma ____ Mourning Cloak, Nymphalis antiopa ____ American Lady, Vanessa virginiensis ____ Painted Lady, Vanessa cardui ____ Red Admiral, Vanessa atalanta ____ Common Buckeye, Junonia coenia ____ White Admiral, Limenitis arthemis arthemis ____ Red-spotted Purple, Limenitis arthemis astyanax ____ Viceroy, Limenitis archippus ____ Appalachian Brown, Satyrodes appalachia ____ Little Wood-Satyr, Megisto cymela ____ Common Ringlet, Coenonympha tullia ____ Common Wood-Nymph, Cercyonis pegala ____ Monarch, Danaus plexippus

RJHOODQR'E`lhkx,Gdrodqhhc`d( ____ Wild Indigo Duskywing, Erynnis baptisiae ____ Least Skipper, Ancyloxypha numitor ____ European Skipper, Thymelicus lineola ____ Hobomok Skipper, Poanes hobomok ____ Broad-winged Skipper, Poanes viator ____ Dun Skipper, Euphyes vestries

DRAGONFLIES

C@QMDQR'E`lhkx,@drgmhc`d( ____ Lance-tipped Darner, Aeshna constricta ____ Shadow Darner, Aeshna umbrosa ____ Common Green Darner, Anax junius ____ Springtime Darner, Basiaeschna janata ____ Taper-tailed Darner, Gomphaeschna antilope

DLDQ@KCR'E`lhkx,Bnqctkhhc`d( ____ Common Baskettail, Epitheca cynosura ____ Prince Baskettail, Epitheca princeps

RJHLLDQR'E`lhkx,Khadkktkhc`d( ____ Calico Pennant, Celithemis elisa ____ Halloween Pennant, Celithemis eponina ____ Eastern Pondhawk, Erythemis simplicicollis ____ Seaside Dragonlet, Erythrodiplax berenice ____ Dot-tailed Whiteface, Leucorrhinia intacta ____ Spangled Skimmer, Libellula cyanea ____ Widow Skimmer, Libellula luctuosa

110 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

APPENDICES

____ Common Whitetail, Libellula lydia ____ Needham’s Skimmer, Libellula needhami ____ Twelve-spotted Skimmer, Libellula pulchella ____ Four-spotted Skimmer, Libellula quadrimaculata ____ Blue Dasher, Pachydiplax longipennis ____ Wandering Glider, Pantala flavescens ____ Spot-winged Glider, Pantala hymenaea ____ Eastern Amberwing, Perithemis tenera ____ Yellow-legged Meadowhawk, Sympetrum vicinum ____ Black Saddlebags, Tramea lacerate

MAMMALS MDVVNQKCNONRRTLR'E`lhkx,Chcdkoghc`d( ____ Virginia Opossum, Didelphis virginiana  RGQDVR'E`lhkx,Rnqhbhc`d ( ____ Masked Shrew, Sorex cinereus

UDRODQA@SR'E`lhkxUdrodqshkhnmhc`d(
____ Little Brown Bat, Myotis lucifugus

G@QDR`mcQ@AAHSR'E`lhkx,Kdonqhc`d(
____ Eastern Cottontail, Sylvilagus floridanus

SQDDRPTHQQDKR`mcL@QLNSR'E`lhkx,Rbhtqhc`d( ____ Eastern Chipmunk, Tamias striatus ____ Woodchuck, Marmota monax ____ Eastern Gray Squirrel, Sciurus carolinensis ____ Red Squirrel, Tamiasciurus hudsonicus

AD@UDQR'E`lhkx,B`rsnqhc`d(






































____ American Beaver, Castor canadensis




LHBD+Q@SR+UNKDR`mcKDLLHMFR'E`lhkx,Ltqhc`d(











































____ White-footed Mouse, Peromyscus leucopus ____ Meadow Vole, Microtus pennsylvanicus ____ Common Muskrat, Ondatra zibethicus

ITLOHMFLHBD'E`lhkx,Y`onchc`d(
____ Meadow Jumping Mouse, Zapus hudsonius  CNFR+ENWDR`mcVNKUDR'E`lhkx,B`mhc`d(
____ Coyote, Canis latrans ____ Red Fox, Vulpes vulpes


D@QKDRRnqG@HQRD@KR'E`lhkx,Ognbhc`d(
____ Harp Seal, Phoca groenlandica (vagrant) ____ Ringed Seal, Phoca hispida (vagrant) ____ Harbor Seal, Phoca vitulina ____ Gray Seal, Halichoerus grypus ____ Hooded Seal, Cystophora cristata (vagrant)

Q@BBNNMR+BN@SHR`mcQHMFS@HKR 'E`lhkx,Oqnbxnmhc`d(

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 111 APPENDICES

____ Common Raccoon, Procyon lotor

VD@RDKR+LHMJR+L@QSDMR`mcNSSDQR 'E`lhkx,Ltrsdkhc`d(
____ Fisher, Martes pennanti ____ Ermine, Mustela erminea ____ American Mink, Mustela vison ____ Northern River Otter, Lutra canadensis

RJTMJR'E`lhkx,Ldoghshc`d(
____ Striped Skunk, Mephitis mephitis

CDDQ+DKJ`mcLNNRD'E`lhkx,Bdquhc`d(
____ White-tailed Deer, Odocoileus virginianus ____ Moose, Alces alces (vagrant)

112 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

APPENDICES

Appendix E Resources of Concern for Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

Shorebird Plan-Atlantic Plan-Atlantic Shorebird Species (USFWS Trend Trend (USFWS Species Conservation Concern Conservation Conservation Concern Conservation Wildlife Conservation Conservation Wildlife Mass Comprehensive MassComprehensive Massachusetts T&E Massachusetts Species of Regional Regional of Species Seasons on Refuge on Seasons Federal Trust Fish TrustFish Federal Waterfowl Plan Waterfowl Waterbird Plan Waterbird USFWS Birds of Birdsof USFWS Plan Pritotities Plan Federal T&E Federal Flyway BCR 30BCR Data) PIF 9 PIF Species* 5 8 10 4 2 11 12 6 1 3 9 7

WATERBIRDS American bittern E M IV X X American coot Arctic tern SC X H Atlantic puffin Black-crowned night-heron M X M Black rail 1B Black tern X M Bonaparte’s gull Clapper rail M Common loon SC X Common moorhen SC X Common tern SC X X X L Great cormorant M Horned grebe H King rail T M X Leach’s storm-petrel E Least bittern E M X Least tern SC HH X X X H Little blue heron H H Northern gannet NR Pied-billed grebe E X Red-throated loon HH Roseate tern E E HH X H Snowy egret HH X H Yellow rail

WATERFOWL American black duck HH 1A X D Atlantic brant HH NT Atlantic Canada goose HH I Barrow’s goldeneye NT Black scoter H D Bufflehead H I Common eider H X D Common goldeneye M NT Greater scaup H NT Harlequin duck H X X NT

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 113 APPENDICES

Federal Trust Fish Species Species TrustFish Federal Shorebird Plan-Atlantic Plan-Atlantic Shorebird Conservation Concern Conservation Conservation Concern Conservation (USFWS Trend Data) Trend (USFWS Wildlife Conservation Conservation Wildlife Mass Comprehensive MassComprehensive Massachusetts T&E Massachusetts Species of Regional Regional of Species Seasons on Refuge on Seasons Waterfowl Plan Waterfowl Waterbird Plan Waterbird USFWS Birds of Birdsof USFWS Plan Pritotities Plan Federal T&E Federal Flyway BCR 30BCR PIF 9 PIF Species* 5 10 4 2 6 11 12 1 3 8 7 9

Hooded merganser H I Lesser scaup H D Long-tailed duck H X D Mallard H NT North Atlantic Canada goose H NT Red-breasted merganser M I Surf scoter H D White-winged scoter H D Wood duck M I

SHOREBIRDS American oystercatcher HH 1A X X 5 American golden plover H 4 American woodcock HH 1A X 5 Black-bellied plover H 3 Buff-breasted sandpiper H X 4 Common snipe 3 Dunlin H 3 Greater yellowlegs H 4 Hudsonian godwit H X 4 Killdeer M 2 Least sandpiper M 3 Lesser yellowlegs M 2 Long-billed dowitcher 2 Marbled godwit H X 4 Pectoral sandpiper 2 Piping plover T T HH 1A X 5 Purple sandpiper H X 3 Red-necked phalarope H 3 Red knot C HH X X X 5 Red phalarope M 3 Ruddy turnstone HH X 4 Sanderling HH X 4 Semipalmated plover M 2 Semipalmated sandpiper H 4 Short-billed dowitcher H X 3 Solitary sandpiper H 3 Spotted sandpiper M 3 Stilt sandpiper 3 Upland sandpiper E M 1B X X X 4 Whimbrel HH X X 5 White-rumped sandpiper H 3

114 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

APPENDICES Shorebird Plan-Atlantic Plan-Atlantic Shorebird Species (USFWS Trend Trend (USFWS Species Conservation Concern Conservation Conservation Concern Conservation Wildlife Conservation Conservation Wildlife Mass Comprehensive MassComprehensive Massachusetts T&E Massachusetts Species of Regional Regional of Species Seasons on Refuge on Seasons Federal Trust Fish TrustFish Federal Waterbird Plan Waterbird Plan Waterfowl USFWS Birds of Birdsof USFWS Plan Pritotities Plan Federal T&E Federal Flyway BCR 30BCR Data) PIF 9 PIF Species* 5 8 10 4 2 11 6 12 1 3 9 7

Willet H 4 Wilson’s phalarope M 4 Wilson’s plover H X 4

LANDBIRDS American kestrel X Bald eagle T E M X Baltimore oriole H 2A X Barn owl SC Bay-breasted warbler X Black-and-white warbler H 2A Black-billed cuckoo 2A Blackburnian warbler M 2C Blackpoll warbler SC X X Black-throated-blue warbler 1B Blue-winged warbler HH 1A X X Bobolink Broad-winged hawk H X Brown thrasher H X Canada warbler M 1B X X X Cape May warbler X Chestnut-sided warbler X Chimney swift H 2A Eastern kingbird H Eastern towhee H 2A X Field sparrow H X Golden eagle X Golden-winged warbler E M 1B X Grasshopper sparrow T M 2C X Gray catbird M Great-crested flycatcher H Hairy woodpecker 2A Henslow’s sparrow E X Ipswich savannah sparrow M Loggerhead shrike M X Long-eared owl SC Louisiana waterthrush H 2B X X Marsh wren H X Mourning warbler SC X Nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrow M 1B X Northern bobwhite H Northern harrier T X X Northern parula T X Olive-sided flycatcher 1B X

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 115 APPENDICES

Shorebird Plan-Atlantic Plan-Atlantic Shorebird Species (USFWS Trend Trend (USFWS Species Conservation Concern Conservation Conservation Concern Conservation Wildlife Conservation Conservation Wildlife Mass Comprehensive MassComprehensive Massachusetts T&E Massachusetts Species of Regional Regional of Species Seasons on Refuge on Seasons Federal Trust Fish TrustFish Federal Waterbird Plan Waterbird Plan Waterfowl USFWS Birds of Birdsof USFWS Plan Pritotities Plan Federal T&E Federal Flyway BCR 30BCR Data) PIF 9 PIF Species* 5 8 10 4 2 11 6 12 1 3 9 7

Peregrine falcon E 2C X X Purple finch 2A Prairie warbler HH 1A X X Rose-breasted grosbeak 2A Saltmarsh sharp-tailed sparrow HH 1A X X X Scarlet tanager H 2A Seaside sparrow HH 1A X X Sedge wren E M 2C X X X Sharp-shinned hawk SC X Short-eared owl E 1B X Vesper sparrow T X Whip-poor-will H 2C X X X Willow flycatcher H 1A X Wood thrush HH 1A X X Warm-eating warbler 1A

MAMMALS Beach vole X Eastern red bat X X Eastern small-footed bat SC X Hoary bat X X Harbor porpoise X X Indiana myotis E E New England cottontail C X X Northern bog lemming X Rock shrew SC X Silver-haired bat X X Southern bog lemming SC X Water shrew SC X

AMPHIBIANS Eastern spadefoot toad T X Four-toed salamander SC X Jefferson salamander SC X

REPTILES Blanding’s turtle T X X Diamondback terrapin T X Eastern box turtle SC X Eastern hognose snake X X Eastern ribbon snake X X

116 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

APPENDICES Shorebird Plan-Atlantic Plan-Atlantic Shorebird Species (USFWS Trend Trend (USFWS Species Conservation Concern Conservation Conservation Concern Conservation Wildlife Conservation Conservation Wildlife Mass Comprehensive MassComprehensive Massachusetts T&E Massachusetts Species of Regional Regional of Species Seasons on Refuge on Seasons Federal Trust Fish TrustFish Federal Waterbird Plan Waterbird Plan Waterfowl USFWS Birds of Birdsof USFWS Plan Pritotities Plan Federal T&E Federal Flyway BCR 30BCR Data) PIF 9 PIF Species* 5 8 10 4 2 11 6 12 1 3 9 7

Green seaturtle T T X Hawksbill seaturtle E E X Kemp’s Rideley seaturtle E E X Leatherback seaturtle E E X Loggerhead seaturtle T T X Spotted turtle SC X X Wood turtle SC X X

FISH Alewife X D American brook lamprey T X American eel X D American shad X D Atlantic salmon X D Atlantic sturgeon E Blueback herring X D Bridle shiner SC X Burbot SC Eastern silvery minnow SC Lake chub E X Longnose sucker SC X Rainbow smelt D Shortnose sturgeon E E X D Striped bass I Three-spined stickleback T X

*Species highlighted in yellow are focal species of concern identified in the habitat objectives

1Seasons on the Refuge: B=Breeding, W=Wintering, M=Migration, YR=Year-Round

2Federal T&E = Federal Endangered Species List: T=Threatened, E=Endangered, C= Candidate

3State T&E= State of Massachusetts Threatened and Endangered Species List: T=Threatened, E=Endangered, SC=Special Concern

4BCR 30 = Bird Conservation Region 30: New England/Mid-Atlantic Coast (December 6-9, 2004 Cape May, New Jersey. HH=Highest Priority, H=High Priority, M=Moderate Priority

5PIF 9 = Partners in Flight Physiographic Area 9; Southern New England (Dettmers and Rosenberg 2000)

6Massachusetts State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan; Species of Greatest Need for Conservation

7USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern: USFWS 2002. Birds of Conservation Concern 2002 (for BCR 14 and BCR 30). Division of Migratory Birds, Arlington, Virginia.

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 117 APPENDICES

8Federal Trust Fish Species USFWS Population Trend Data: I=increasing, D=decreasing

9Species of Regional Conservation Concern: Northeast Endangered Species and Wildlife Diversity Technical Committee. 1999. Wildlife species of regional conservation concern in the Northeastern United States. Northeast Wildlife, 54: 93-100.

10 Shorebird Plan-Atlantic Flyway = Clark and Niles 2000 North Atlantic Regional Shorebird Plan

11 Waterbird Plan: James A. Kushlan, Melanie J. Steinkamp, Katharine C. Parsons, Jack Capp, Martin Acosta Cruz, Malcolm Coulter, Ian Davidson, Loney Dickson, Naomi Edelson, Richard Elliot, R. Michael Erwin, Scott Hatch, Stephen Kress, Robert Milko, Steve Miller, Kyra Mills, Richard Paul, Roberto Phillips, Jorge E. Saliva, Bill Sydeman, John Trapp, Jennifer Wheeler, and Kent Wohl. 2002. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas: The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, Version 1. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas. Washington, DC, U.S.A. H=High Risk, M=Moderate Risk, L=Low Risk, NR=Not Currently At Risk

12 Waterfowl Plan: North American Waterfowl Management Plan: Strengthening the Biological Foundation: 2004 Strategic Guidance. Population Trends: I=Increasing, D=Decreasing, NT=No Trend

118 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

APPENDICES

Appendix F Past North Pool Improvement Feasibility Studies

From 1985 to 1990, the Refuge investigated several potential projects that may improve the functionality of the North Pool as an impoundment. The goals of these projects was to (1) create a functional, self- sustaining wetland ecological unit; (2) perpetuate the natural, ecological processes of the North Pool; (3) maintain or restore habitat to enhance PIF priority species identified for the Southern New England region, and (4) minimize need for control of invasive plant species, specifically Phragmites, purple loosestrife and cattail.

Constructing a Freshwater Well

Plan : Construct a well to obtain freshwater that can be used to effectively manage North Pool as a moist soil unit. The Refuge staff would have significantly more control over the water level in the impoundments throughout the year, and would be able to raise or lower the water level based on wildlife need.

Results : Two test wells and analysis of the fresh lens aquifer found that 0.42 million gallons per day (or 290 gallons per minute) of water can be yield during a year of average precipitation (44.95 inches). A specific water needs analysis has not been conducted to determine how much water would be needed to manage the North Pool as a moist soil unit. The 1983 Master Plan references a desired well yield of 1.4 mg/d. Based on historical water level changes (loss of 6.8 inches in 19 days), we know that loss of water to transpiration, evaporation, and seepage has been documented at 0.97 mg/d in the North Pool. With this low volume of available freshwater source from the well, the cost of construction and operation (approximately at $460,000 for construction in 1985), and the possibility of salt water intrusion with long term pumping, this option was not explored further.

Sub impoundments

Plan : Sub impound the North Pool into three or four smaller units. The limited fresh water available would be serially pumped into each of the sub impoundments to manage them as individual moist soil units.

Result : The Service Engineering Division did a feasibility study to determine if head water can be retained in a small impoundment over a certain period of time. Based on test boring of impoundment substrate and calculations of freshwater inputs (precipitation and runoff) and output (transpiration, evaporation, and leaching), they concluded that a given head of water cannot be sustained in the impoundment through a growing season without sealing the substrate. This analysis was supported by historic records which indicated loss of as much as 6.8 inches of water in 19 days.

Filling the Burrow Ditch

Plan : Create a soil profile in the North Pool that is more gradual- similar to Bill Forward and Stage Island Pool. The thought was that if the burrow ditch is filled in, the water that is currently filling the ditch may flood the current phragmites, cattail, and loosestrife stands.

Results : Depth reading and water level reading were taken along the entire length of the burrow ditch. Depth of the ditch varied greatly from north and south. The average depth at the north end was 3’4” and the average depth at the south end was 6’5”. Some cross sectional transect were also taken with similar variability. For example, at the south end, the depth from dike to marsh was 2’, 7’, 7’6”, 2’, 3’, 1’6. To

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 119 APPENDICES

approximate the amount of material needed to fill the ditch, we multiplied the length of the borrow ditch with its average depth and average width. It was estimated that 105,173 cubic yards or 231,381 tons of fill would be needed. As a comparison, it took 12,046 cubic yards of gravel to resurface the unpaved portion of the Refuge main road at a cost of $500,000 dollars. It would take about 8.7 times more fill to fill the burrow ditch with commensurate cost. Additionally, there is some concern that filling the burrow ditch would not raise the water level in the impoundment to sufficiently flood the invasive plants.

Water Control Structure and Widening Channels

In 1988, a water control structure was constructed along the North Pool dike to allow Refuge staff to manage the invasive plant species with brackish water. Due to the tidal restriction from having a single water control structure, it was determined that brackish water management could not be accomplished without constructing additional structures. In 1990, the channels within the impoundment were cleared of silt using a cookie cutter. A new ditch was also dug east of the impoundment to improve water circulation in the impoundment. However, due to a lack of circulation the majority of the creeks and burrow ditch has since silted back in.

120 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

APPENDICES

Appendix G Potential Management Practices

This appendix summarizes potential management practices for implementing strategies identified in Chapter 5, and will be used by Refuge staff to develop specific management prescriptions in the Annual Habitat Work Plans. These potential management practices were developed in conjunction with biologists and managers from other coastal New England refuges, based on extensive literature review and sound professional judgment, and refined to suit the habitats and conditions at Parker River Refuge.

Maintain natural habitat succession and processes Maritime forces, such as salt spray, storms and wind, are importance processes that maintain the shrub community on a barrier island. The dynamic nature of barrier islands and irregular disturbance events prevent succession of shrub habitat to a forested landscape. Natural disturbances, such as storm surges, wind throw, herbivory, beaver activities, disease and insect outbreaks, and fire also help to maintain desirable shrub structure. Disturbances and succession counter-balance each other in the development of shifting micro-habitats within the maritime shrub habitat, such as sandplain grasslands and interdunal swale. Other natural processes such as disease outbreaks and lightning-caused fire may result in shifts in natural communities. Managers can use these natural processes to maintain desired habitat type. It is important to monitor these habitats though, to ensure that the hands-off approach does result in high value habitats for wildlife.

Herbivore Control While selective feeding or browsing by wild herbivores can maintain desirable conditions, over browsing can negatively impact woody plant species composition and stand structure in shrub and forest habitats. White-tailed deer is the most common species that cause impacts of concern to wildlife managers. Methods to reduce negative impacts include deterrents, exclusion, or population reduction. Deterrents (e.g., chemical application, scare devices) and exclusion (e.g., fencing, seedling tubes) are labor intensive and costly to employ, chemicals can create environmental hazards, and both methods usually are not practical or satisfactory except in small-scale situations such as nurseries or small plantations. Population reduction methods include reproductive controls (e.g., chemosterilants, contraceptives) that are costly and require continual reapplication, and public hunting. Hunting is the most widely practiced tool for reducing negative impacts of herbivory in these settings. Hunting must be regulated (e.g., hunting methods, timing of seasons, hunting pressure) and harvests monitored to prevent negative impact to long- term survival of target herbivore populations.

Historically, deer overpopulation has caused damage to the maritime shrub habitat as well as contributing to an unhealthy deer population. The Refuge implemented public deer hunts intermittently in response to deer overpopulation. In 1995, the Refuge initiated a long term deer management program and study to ensure a healthy deer population that was commensurate with the habitat. Since then, an annual deer hunt (1-2 days) has regulated the white-tailed deer population.

In some situations, beavers can conflict with certain management objectives through excessive tree felling and girdling, and flooding of sensitive habitats. Trapping (conducted by nuisance trapper) is the most effective method of removing problem beavers. Because beavers are part of the natural landscape, and can be beneficial in terms of creating wetland habitats, harvest of nuisance beavers will only be conducted when negative impacts on shrub habitat is determined to be excessive.

Prescribed Burning Fire historically played a major role in shaping the ecosystems of coastal and southern New England, particularly coastal habitats. Several natural historians have concluded that fires set frequently by native

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 121 APPENDICES

peoples, and also naturally-occurring fires, were important ecological factors in New England, especially in oak forests and pine plains (Bromley 1935, Day 1953, Motzkin et al. 1996). In reconstructing pre- European North American fire frequencies 2, Frost (1998) estimated that pre-settlement fire frequency regimes in PIF Region 9 were approximately 7-12 years in the more fire-prone habitats of the coastal plain. Fire-prone areas in New England usually coincide with soils derived from glacial outwash sands and gravels, fractured or loose rock, or shallow soils over bedrock (DeGraaf et al. 2005). Davis (1996) reports that fire was the major historic disturbance that shaped the vegetation of coastal MA, CT, RI and NY.

Since fire was an historic, significant ecological factor in southern and coastal New England, restoring natural fire regimes is a logical approach for helping to restore and maintain biological integrity, diversity and ecosystem health on refuges in this region, especially in habitats that normally would have burned frequently, such as pitch pine barrens, maritime shrublands, sandplain grasslands, and coastal salt marshes. Prescribed fire may also be used to manage for desired plants in grassland habitat, manage against invasive plants in impoundments, and to create preferred nesting habitat for nesting birds. Prescribed fire, possibly in combination with mechanical or chemical treatments to simulate fire effects, is an important tool to mimic a range of successional stages, maintain a diversity of rare species, and suppress invasive species (Raleigh et al. 2003). Prior to implementing a prescribe burn at Parker River or Thacher Island, an Annual Prescribed Burn Plan will be developed detailing the objectives of prescribed fire, and specific prescriptions for implementing the burn.

Prescribed fires that remove organic layers can be used to influence the composition and quantity of plants, favoring early-successional species (Graham et al. 1998). When using prescribed fire to alter woody plant cover in early successional habitats it is important to consider that many woody plants, especially shrubs, are adapted to disturbance, regenerating new shoots prolifically. Fire can increase or decrease shrub stem density in a habitat. Thus, fire can either help eliminate (through direct mortality) or maintain shrub-scrub habitat structure (by pruning tall woody plants back, killing less-fire adapted trees, encouraging shrub sprouts). The key to predicting fire effects on woody plants is fire regime (frequency, seasonal timing, severity, and geographic size of fire). The fire regime will affect: differential shrub and sapling mortality (which species die, which don’t); mortality vs. top-kill effects; and post-fire vegetative regeneration.

Total plant mortality is often the result of injury to several different parts of the plant, (i.e. crown damage coupled with stem tissue mortality). Many prescribed fires (often executed in the dormant season) “top- kill” shrubs, but fail to kill the entire plant, which re-sprouts from dormant buds. New shoots can originate from dormant buds located both above the ground surface (i.e. epicormic sprouts, root collar sprouts), and from various levels within the litter, duff, and mineral soil layers (i.e. rhizomes, root crowns). It is the severity of fires (depth of fire and ground char) that directly affects shrubs’ re-sprouting ability from these buds. Moderate severity fires (moderate ground char, consumes litter layer, partially consumes duff layer) frequently cause the greatest increase in stem numbers from root sprouters such as rhizomatous shrubs, by pruning rhizomes below the surface, causing several new shoots develop per rhizome. High severity fires (deep ground char, removes duff layer and large woody debris) are more likely to eliminate species with regenerative structures in duff layer or at duff/soil interface (Miller 2000). Prolonged heating, such as that experienced during a slow, backing fire (versus a fast-moving head-fire) causes greater burn severity, and plant tissue death. Slow, backing fires, in general, cause more woody

2 Frost (2000) used a synthesis of physiographic factors (land surface form and topography), fire compartment size, vegetation records, fire-frequency indicator species, lightning ignition data, composite fire scar chronologies, remnant natural vegetation communities, and published fire history studies.

122 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

APPENDICES tissue damage than rapid head-fires (Miller 2000). Therefore, if the goal is to increase density of shrub stems, a moderate severity, dormant season fire is probably preferred. If the goal is to decrease shrub stems, a high severity, growing season, backing fire is probably best.

Invasive Plant Management

Controlling and managing invasive plants is a strategy for maintaining the biological integrity and diversity of all habitats and management units, particularly in the maritime shrub and forest, grassland, and impoundment units. The potential management means for controlling invasive plants are described in detail below.

1) Manual and Mechanical Control Mechanical removal of plants can be effective against some herbaceous plants, shrubs and saplings, and aquatic plants, especially if they are annuals or have a taproot. Care should be taken to minimize soil disturbance to prevent creating conditions ideal for weed seed germination. Repeated cutting over a growing period is needed for effective control of many invasive plant species. Care should be taken to properly remove and dispose of any plant parts that can re- sprout. Treatments should be timed to prevent seed set and re-sprouting. The following methods are available: hand-pulling, pulling with hand tools (weed wrench, etc.), mowing, brush-hogging, weed-eating, stabbing (cutting roots while leaving in place), girdling (removing cambium layer), mulching, tilling, smothering (black plastic or other), and flooding.

The advantages of mechanical treatment are low cost for equipment and supplies and minimal damage to neighboring plants and the environment. The disadvantages are higher costs for labor and inability to control large areas. For many invasive species, mechanical treatments alone are not effective, especially for mature plants or well-established plants. Mechanical treatments are most effective when combined with herbicide treatments (e.g. girdle and herbicide treatment).

2) Biological control Biological control is the use of animals or disease organisms that feed upon or parasitize the invasive species target. Usually, the control agent is imported from the invasive species’ home country, and artificially high numbers of the control agent are fostered and maintained. There are also “conservation” or “augmentation” biological control methods where populations of biological agents already in the environment (usually native) are maintained or enhanced to target an invasive species.

The disadvantage of biological control is the chance that an introduced control agent can itself become an invasive species, or can cause great damage to a native species. Great care must be taken in selecting appropriate biocontrol agents, and appropriate control agents may not even exist for all invasive species. The advantages of this method are that it avoids the use of chemicals and can provide relatively inexpensive and permanent control over large areas. Currently, more effort is placed on using “conservation” approach to biological control; and this has great promise as an effective, long-term control method.

The Refuge has introduced Galerucella and Hylobius beetles to control purple loosestrife with great success. Research is currently ongoing on developing and testing biological control agents for Phragmites.

3) Herbicides There are a wide variety of chemicals that are toxic to plant and animal species. They work in different ways and can be very target specific, or affect a wide range of species. Herbicides may

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 123 APPENDICES

be “pre-emergent,” that is, applied prior to germination to prevent germination or kill the seedling, or “post-emergent” and may have various modes of action (auxin mimic, amino acid inhibitor, mitosis inhibitor, photosynthesis inhibitor, lipid biosynthesis inhibitor). Products may come in granular, pellet, dust or liquid forms. Liquid herbicides are commonly diluted to an appropriate formula and mixed with other chemicals that facilitate mixing, application or efficacy. Common application methods include foliar spray, basal bark, hack and squirt, injection, and cut stump.

The advantages are that the right chemicals, applied correctly, can produce desired results over a large area for a reasonable cost. The disadvantages are that the chemicals may affect non-target species at the site (including the applicator) and/or contaminate surface or groundwater. Proper planning includes using the most target-specific, least hazardous (humans and the environment), and most effective chemical for the job. Additionally, one should research minimum effective dosage, as the chemical labels often give higher than necessary concentrations. Attention to protective gear, licensing requirements and other regulations is essential. Herbicides are most effective when used in combination with mechanical methods described above.

4) Prescribed Fire Fire can either suppress or encourage any given plant species, so great care must be taken to understand the ecosystem and the life histories of the native and invasive plants before using this tool. This tool is most successful when it is used to mimic natural fire regimes. Proper timing of prescribed burns is essential for controlling target invasive species. The most effective fires for invasive plant control occur just prior to flower or seed set, or at the young sapling/seedling stage. Invasive plants are well-adapted to disturbance, often surviving fire and rapidly spreading through a disturbed landscape. Studies in northeastern successional habitats have generally shown that fire alone will not remove invasive shrubs. Additional herbicide and/or cutting treatments are necessary (Patterson 2003).

This tool requires a good deal of pre-planning (including permitting) and requires a trained crew available on short notice during the burn window. Spot burning using a propane torch can be a good method to control small infestations of invasive plants. It can be advantageous where it is too wet or where there is little fuel to carry a prescribed fire.

There are several principles that should be considered when employing prescribed fire to control woody plants:

1. Plant mortality is strongly tied to death of “growth points” (i.e. meristems/buds), which are more sensitive to heat damage when actively growing, and when tissue moisture is high (Miller 2000). Therefore, applying fire during spring, when target plants are mobilizing water/nutrients and breaking dormancy of leaf/flower buds, or during fall cold-acclimation periods, is more likely to kill growth points than prescribed fire during dormant periods.

2. Concentrations of metabolic compounds, i.e. sugars, salts, lignins, vary seasonally, and have been shown to relate to seasonal effects on shrubs. Consequently, timing of treatments may be more important than the type (cutting versus burning) in controlling invasive plants. To maximally reduce biomass, fires should be applied during periods of low below-ground carbohydrate storage (i.e. immediately after spring flushing and growth) and should be followed with a second growing season treatment (such as mowing, herbicide, or more prescribed fire) before total non-structural carbohydrate (TNC) levels are replenished. Repeated burning (several consecutive years) during the low point of a plant’s TNC cycle can amplify the negative effects of the treatment (Richburg and Patterson 2003, 2004).

124 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

APPENDICES

Predator Management

1) Predator exclosures and electric fencing Where nest predation is high, individual predator exclosures (constructed of 2x2 inch mesh wire fence and installed around plover nest) may be used to improve hatching success (Service 1995, Johnson and Oring 2002). The small mesh allows adult plovers in and out of the nest site but prevents access to predators such as coyote, raccoon, skunk, crows, or gulls.

Use of exclosure can have negative impacts on plover conservation. Exclosure draw attention to the exact location of nest, attracting predators as well as potential vandals. Use of exclosure can result in adult plover mortality (Johnson & Oring 2002, Service 2003). The Refuge lost five adults in 2003 and one adult in 2006 to avian predators that keyed in on the exclosures. Extreme caution should be taken when using predator exclosures, as the lost of a breeding adult is much more detrimental to the recovery of the species than low productivity. The Piping Plover Recovery Plan established guidelines on the types of exclosure to be used and how and when they should be deployed. Factors to consider include rate of nest predation during the previous season, abundance of predator tracks on the beach, and location of the nest. Over the years, the Refuge has modified exclosure design with approval from Ecological Service and the State due to increased mortality of adults. Refuge staff will continue to closely monitor nesting plovers and predator activities and coordinate closely with staff at Crane Beach to determine exclosure use on a year to year and case by case basis.

Electric fencing is used around least tern nesting colonies to deter mammalian predation. Currently the refuge uses electric fencing developed for use with sheep and other small grazing animals. The fence is easily erected and is easy to dismantle and move if storm tides are predicted to inundate the fence. It is operated using a solar panel and marine battery.

2) Behavioral Modification Potential predators can be deterred from preying on plovers or terns through: conditioned taste aversion, repellents, or effigies. Conditioned taste aversion involved training potential predators (such as crows) to associate consuming plover or tern eggs with illness. This is accomplished by distributing bait (plover or tern eggs laced with an illness-causing substance, such as Mesurol) in nesting territories prior to nest establishment. To avoid adverse impacts to terns and plovers, baiting should begin a few weeks prior to arrival of birds at nesting territories and baiting should not be continued once egg laying begins. This method has been proven effective in Oregon and Maine (Liebezeit and George 2002). Conditioned taste aversion is initially more labor-intensive than other types of predator control; however, once established, predator control is retained for long periods (over one year), as the conditioned individuals tend to exclude conspecifics that would otherwise prey on plover or terns. Conditional taste aversion appears to be site-specific, and is most effective for colonial nesters (e.g. terns). Mesurol has not been approved for use for Massachusetts and additional approval from US Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Service is required prior to use.

Repellents can be visual (ballons, flagging, streamers) or auditory (propane cannons, synthetic bird calls, pyrotechnics, and other sonic devices), and work by conditioning a predator to avoid a certain area (e.g. nesting site). Repellents have short-periods of effectiveness as wildlife soon discover that repellents are not actually harmful. A type of repellent found to be more effective is the use of effigies (e.g. scarecrows, raptor models, or dead carcasses). Penn (2004, pers. comm.) found that hanging dead crows from an elevated site tcan deter other crows from preying on plover eggs. Other studies have found that crow carcasses placed near least tern colony was

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 125 APPENDICES

effective in keeping other crows away (Liebezeit and George 2002). Crows appear to react more strongly if the carcass used was a member of their family group.

3) Lethal Removal Lethal removal involves shooting or trapping and euthanizing suspected predators. The Refuge uses lethal removal as a last resort when all non-lethal methods have proven ineffective. The refuge uses Hav-a-Hart live traps to capture problem animals such as skunk and raccoon. The animals are typically shot with a 22-caliber rifle. In the past the refuge has used padded leg hold traps to capture and remove red fox. Due to the State restriction on the use of leg hold traps the Refuge has not used this method for several years. However, if deemed necessary, the Refuge may use this method to remove animals (fox, coyote, crow) that cannot be removed using other methods (box traps or shooting).

Lethal removal is often the most expedient way to remove problem animals, however, effects are often short-term. Other animals (may or may not be of the same species) may move into the territory within weeks of removal, and are typically more difficult to remove (Liebezeit and George 2002). For this reason, lethal removal is used sparingly and only immediately before or at the start of the plover breeding season. Great-horned owls found predating on plovers or least terns will be trapped and relocated to other areas in the State, whenever feasible.

Salt Marsh Restoration

1) Restore tidal hydrology Restricted tidal flow can result in severe tidal marsh degradation as demonstrated by expansion/domination by invasive Phragmites australis , surface subsidence, conversion to open water, or conversion to brackish or freshwater plants (Roman et al. 1984). Such degradation can result in loss of habitat for salt marsh fish species, particularly mummichugs and American eel, and decreased use by shorebirds and wading birds. Restoration of tidal hydrology must proceed cautiously accounting for changes in marsh elevation (subsidence) that developed since the occurrence of restricted flow; immediate restoration of full tidal volumes could result in creation of mud flats or permanent open water. Full tidal restoration could also result in negative impacts such as flooding of human structures built on low lying elevations during the time of tidal restriction, and flooding of sharp-tailed sparrow and seaside sparrow nests (DiQuinzio et al. 2002). Installation of self-regulating tide gates has been used to address potential flooding of human structures (Roman et al. 1995). Benefits of tidal restoration include restoration of salt marsh habitat, control of invasive Phragmites , increased number and abundance of nekton species, increase use by shorebirds, wading birds, and sharp-tailed sparrows.

2) Planting or seeding Successful restoration of native salt marsh in New England depends on hydrology, salinity regime, and relative competitive strengths of native versus invasive plants. Planting or seeding a salt marsh restoration area is more expensive than allowing natural reseeding to occur but has several advantages. Planting or seeding provides a competitive advantage to native vegetation by occupying a space first. This is particularly important if a natural native seed source is at some distance. Purchased plant and seed stock should be carefully selected to ensure correct provence, temperature tolerances, and other local genetic features. Plant material should be installed at the beginning of the growing season to allow plants sufficient time to establish before winter. One drawback of planted material is that it is often attractive to grazers such as snow and Canada geese.

3) Fill Removal

126 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

APPENDICES

Salt marshes have often been used as dumping grounds for dredge, sanitary landfill, and toxic materials. Removal of this material can range from simple and straightforward to highly regulated and complex. As with tidal flow restoration, it is imperative to establish correct elevations for tidal input and restored marsh surfaces. Because of the disturbed nature of many of these sites, hydrology and elevation are critical in controlling invasion of nearby Phragmites . The benefits of removing fill material can be significant – conversion of a disturbed fill area to high quality salt marsh habitat. Since fill areas often occur in urbanized locations, restored areas substantially increase available salt marsh habitat by a large percentage.

Grassland Management and Restoration

1) Mowing/Haying Mowing can be used to reduce plant height without altering species composition or reducing thatch accumulation. Mowing effectively removes woody species from the fields, but may require repeated mowing during any one season. Ideally managers should alternate treatments (burning, mowing, herbicide) on a 3-5 year rotation to maintain desired habitat conditions. Mowing must be conducted outside the nesting season for grassland nesting species to insure that they are not adversely affected by the practice. Repeated mowing within a growing season may be required to set back the shrub species that’s starting to dominate the fields. For repeated mowing regimes, the first mow should be completed prior to initiative of nesting to discourage birds from nesting at the site. Mowing can be conducted by Refuge staff or in cooperation with local farmers (haying). In the latter case, Refuge staff should work closely with farmers to ensure that farm equipment doesn’t introduce new invasive plant species.

2) Burning Fire has historically been used on refuges in BCR 14 to maintain grassland openings for grassland birds and woodcock, such as abandoned pastures, old fields, and blueberry barrens. Prescribed fire may be used to: increase grass biomass (e.g. by eliminating woody shade plants, extending the growing season by removing litter, and buffering soil chemistry); selectively controlling tall forbs or fire-sensitive woody plants (by topkilling or causing mortality); mineralize litter; and increase community diversity (by altering the composition of early-flowering or late-flowering plants). Prescribed fire also may used to maintain an interspersion of shrub- and grass-dominated communities attractive to shrubland passerines, by topkilling shrubs in old fields, and allowing them to resprout into thickets. Fire may be used to help eradicate exotic, invasive plants from open habitats, in some cases precluding the need to use chemical herbicides.

The timing of burning can have a significant impact on site conditions. The Refuge may use a late season mowing, combined with a spring prescribed burn to promote the growth of cool- season grasses and other vegetative species that have a second vegetative growth period in the fall. Although prescribed burning controls the height of the vegetation, the effects do not last beyond a single growing season. Our long-term objective is to convert the current grassland dominated by non-native species to vegetation composition more representative of sandplain grassland community. We anticipate that experimenting with fall mowing, spring and fall burning, and chemical application to promote species diversity and minimize need for active management.

3) Selective Cutting and Herbicides There are many different techniques available to selectively cut small groups of trees, including the use of drum mowers, hydro-axe, brush hogging, girdling, stump cutting, and herbicide application. The objective of selective cutting is to either remove unwanted species (e.g. invasive plants) or to clear small openings in early successional shrub mosaics. Once cut, woody debris

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 127 APPENDICES

can be left on site to rot, chipped and broadcasted on site, removed from the site, and piled on site and burned to return the nutrients to the soil.

4) Seeding/Planting/Restoration. Seeding and planting desirable plants can be used to enhance existing grasslands, or in restoration of degraded grasslands. Selection of species and ecotypes is a critical step in seeding and restoration. While many species are commercial available for grassland restoration, few are native to the Northeast. Using local seed and plant materials is important in restoration as plants have wide genetic diversity across geographic space.

Initial seedbed preparation to decrease the weed seed bank is critical to the success grassland restoration. Starting one year prior to seeding is ideal and a controlled burn in summer or fall decreases surface weed seeds and litter. By the following March or April, spring disking or tilling will reduce the number of winter-growing weeds which set seed. The area should be left fallow during summer and tilled or sprayed with herbicide (glophosate or pre-emergent herbicide), as necessary, to eliminate late-germinating weeds. One advantage of this spring-summer fallow technique is that deep soil moisture is conserved for the following fall planting. Finally, seedbed preparation may require smoothing with a land plane or scraper and roller if soil clods are large. Rolling with a ring roller provides compaction that will maintain good soil moisture following the first rains.

Broadcast seeding followed by shallow harrowing and cultipacking is very effective, especially on well prepared soil. A small flexible tine harrow (Fuerst) can be pulled by a standard ATV to easily and rapidly harrowed soil to cover the broadcast seed. In small or inaccessible areas, four pronged cultivator rakes can be used to agitate the soil and cover the seed.

5) Restorating site conditions Restoring site conditions favorable to grassland communities can be an important strategy in grassland management and to minimize frequency of management. Site capacity is the single most important factor in successful native grassland management and restoration (Huenneke et al. 1990, Treat et al. 2003). Self-sustaining grassland in New England coastal area (Sandplain grasslands) tend to occur in sandy, dry, nutrient poor soils that is exposed to frequent disturbance (coastal erosion, fire, salt spry, et.c) (Gwilliam 2004). Historical agricultural and wildlife management practices (fertilizing soil, planting non-native species) may have made management of grassland more difficult. Restoration of soil characteristics to pre-human disturbance conditions can assist in successful grassland restoration and management.

Impoundment Vegetation Management

In addition, vegetation management is needed to encourage moist-soil vegetation and control robust and invasive plants. Plants that occur in an impoundment can be either desirable or undesirable based on their value to wildlife. Generally, plants that provide cover, energy, or nutritional value for resources of concern are desirable. Plants that quickly develop monocultures and impede foraging by wildlife are undesirable. Whether a plant is desirable also depends on the resource of concern managed for. For example, cattail is undesirable to shorebirds and waterfowl because it forms dense monotypic stands, and competes with foraging habitat (mudflats and moist-soil vegetation) of shorebirds and waterfowl. In contrast, it provides cover and breeding habitat for marsh birds, and therefore is desirable if managing for those species. The challenge of impoundment management is balancing the needs of various wildlife guilds. Listed below are available strategies for promoting desirable vegetation and controlling undesirable or invasive plants.

128 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

APPENDICES

1) Water level manipulations Water level management can be used to control invasive and robust plants and promote desirable plants. Robust plants such as Phragmites require air pockets (carbon dioxide) to survive. Past experimental management at the Refuge have found that flooding the impoundment through all or parts of a growing season, particularly after mowing or chemical application, stymies vegetative growth of robust vegetation (USFWS 2006). Subsequent draw down will allow for germination of moist-soil plants (rushes, sedges, etc) preferred by waterfowl. Flooding has been successfully used in the Bill Forward and Stage Island Pools to control Phragmites, but not he North Pool due to inability to flood the marsh surface through the growing season. Timing and speed of drawdown affects species diversity, density, and seed production. Slow drawdown (4-8 weeks) early in the season create greater species diversity, while fast drawdown (a few to less than 2 weeks) promote extensive stands of similar vegetation (Lane and Jensen 1999).

2) Mowing Mowing can be used to reduce plant height and deplete energy reserves of invasive and robust plants. Repeated mowing within a growing season is often necessary to successfully control invasive plants. This can be logistically difficult in a habitat that is managed for various resources of concern. However, mowing can be effective when combined with other strategies, such as chemical treatment, spring flooding, and discing. Timing of mowing should be scheduled to maximize above ground energy reserves and to prevent seed dispersal (late summer). Mowing may also increase plant diversity by creating space (light) for other species to germinate.

3) Disking/Tilling Disking and tilling (turning over of top soil and cutting turned soil) is often used in combination with mowing to set back succession and promote both seed germination and invertebrate populations. Disking and tilling breaks up organic root matter, encouraging decomposition, and increasing invertebrate populations. At the same time, it breaks up dense root matter, killing perennial plant and encouraging germinations of annual seed producing plants.

Some research indicates that soil disturbances (disking or tilling) can promote invasive plants by cutting rhizome into numerous segments and creating open ground for invasive plant establishment (Lane 1999). However, experimental study of disking the Bill Forward Pool found percent cover of Phragmites to decrease and overall plant diversity to increase following disking of a Phragmites stand (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006). To avoid promoting Phragmites expansion, disking should not be implemented where the dominant vegetation is native.

4) Herbicide Invasive and robust plants in impoundments can be managed using herbicides approved for use in wetlands. The most commonly used chemical for controlling invasive and robust vegetation in impoundment is glyphosate (Rodeo). A recent study in Virginia has found the chemical Imazapyr to be nine times as effective as Rodeo in controlling Phragmites (Virginia Dept of Conservation and Recreation 2006). Methods of application include spot-treatment using back pack or ATV mounted sprayer, or aerial application. Spot-treated is more targeted (avoiding neighboring plants), but can be very labor intensive when treating large areas. Aerial application is less labor-intense, but is not as target-specific, and requires extensive planning to execute. Herbicides are applied during flowering and prior to seed set to maximize effectiveness. For long term control, herbicide application is typically combined with other methods, such as mowing, burning, and flooding.

5) Biological Control

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 129 APPENDICES

Control of the invasive plant purple loosestrife has been enormously successful with introduction of a biological control agent, Galerucella beetles. From 1996 to 2000, the Refuge released 51,000 Galerucella and 1,800 Hylobrius beetles. Purple loosestrife composition in the impoundments has drastically reduced, and the beetles have established a self-sustaining population, continuing to control loosestrife. We will continue to monitor both beetle and loosestrife population and augment the beetle population as needed. Research is ongoing in the development of biological control agents for Phragmites .

6) Prescribed Burning Prescribed burning has been historically used to promote growth of desirable plants and control invasive plants in impoundments, particularly Phragmites . Burning kill perennial plants and reduces excessive litter accumulation, allowing moist soil vegetation to germinate. However, successful long-term control of Phragmites requires root burns, which rarely occur since rhizomes are usually covered by a layer of soil, mud and/or water. Prescribed fire does remove accumulated Phragmites leaf litter and dead standing canes, giving seeds of other species an opportunity to germinate. Removing litter may also increase shoot germination of Phragmites by increasing light availability.

Timing of burning is important to controlling Phragmites. For example, Cross and Fleming (1982) believes that late summer burns are more effective than spring and winter burns, which may increase biomass. Thompson and Shay (1985) found increased below-ground biomass production and greater shoot biomass with spring and fall burns compared to summer burns. Prescribed burning has been used with success in combination with chemical treatment and water level management at several refuges in New Jersey, New York, and Delaware. At Wertheim NWR in New York, Phragmites was reduced by half for a four-year period by draining the impoundment fall of year one, burning the following winter and reflooding for the third growing season (TNC in press).

7) Seeding/Planting Most impoundments contain abundant stock of moist-soil plant seeds native to a locality. These seeds may remain viable in the soil for many years, and germinate under suitable environmental conditions. In certain circumstances, past human activities (such as extensive herbicide use, prolonged flooding, and promoting monotypic plants for many years) may have altered site conditions such that the soil seed bank is inadequate or nonexistent. In these situations, the seed bank may need to be augmented through planting of seeds, rhizomes, or seedlings to ensure growth of desirable plants. Whenever possible, seeds and other plant material should be taken from a local reference site.

Vegetation Management for Tern Restoration

1) Grazing Grazing (sheep, goat) can be used to reduce stem height and density of plants in an effort to enhance nesting habitat for terns. Our primary objective is to manage for a particular plant structure or height, not for a particular plant species. Grazing should be implemented after the tern breeding season. In April, grazing should be removed to allow the vegetation to increase in height and provide adequate cover for the nesting terns. Studies at Petit Manan Refuge in Maine indicate that the sheep reduce plant height and density, but grazing also alters species composition. At this point in time, we do not believe that the change in community composition adversely affects the suitability of the habitat to support nesting terns. However, monitoring must be conducted to insure that grazing is not promoting expansion of invasive eplants. Prior to

130 Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR

APPENDICES

initiating a grazing program on another island, the Refuge would need to evaluate potential soil compaction and erosion concerns, and the habitat needs of other species of conservation concern.

2) Prescribed fire Prescribed burning can be used to maintain early successional habitat (i.e. grasslands) and prevent the encroachment of woody stems. Other refuges has utilized prescribed fire to maintain nesting habitat for common and Arctic terns (Petit Manan HMP 2005). Prescribed burns should be conducted in April, prior to the arrival of nesting seabirds and “green-up” of vegetation. This practice results in oxidation of standing dead biomass and surface litter, with little damage to regenerating herbaceous perennials (N. Richards pers. comm.). Although spring burns reduce small woody and semi-woody stems down to near ground level, the plants retain their ability to re-sprout below the burned stems. This practice is not likely to have any significant effect on the composition of the existing plant community.

3) Mowing Mowing can be used to reduce plant height without altering species composition or reducing thatch accumulation. Mowing effectively removes woody species from the fields, but requires repeated mowing or burning within 3-5 years to maintain desired habitat conditions. Ideally managers should alternate treatments to maintain desired habitat conditions. Mowing must be completed outside the nesting season for grassland nesting species to insure that they are not adversely affected by the practice.

Habitat Management Plan-- Parker River and Thacher Island NWR 131