U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Long Island National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

September 2006
Cover Photos: Ruddy turnstone - Long Island, NY,  Janet C. Zinn

Sandplain gerardia, Don Sias/The Nature Conservancy

School group at Elizabeth A. Morton NWR, Jack Martinez/USFWS

Wertheim NWR, USFWS

(Background) Elizabeth A. Morton NWR, USFWS

This blue goose, designed by J.N. “Ding” 

Darling, has become a symbol of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for 

conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the 

continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the 96-million acre 

National Wildlife Refuge system comprised of more than 545 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, 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 of millions of dollars in excise taxes on 

fishing and hunting equipment to state wildlife agencies.

Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long term guidance for management 

decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge 

purposes and identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail 

program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget 

allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program 

prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, 

operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
Long Island

National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Submitted by:

Debbie J. Long

Refuge Manager

Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Amagansett, Conscience Point, Elizabeth A. Morton, Oyster Bay, Seatuck, Target 

Rock and Wertheim National Wildlife Refuges, the Sayville Unit of Wertheim, and 

Lido Beach Wildlife Management Area

Concurrence by:

Approval by:

Date

Susan R. McMahon

Deputy Regional Chief, Region 5

National Wildlife Refuge System

Date

Anthony D. Legér

Regional Chief, Region 5

National Wildlife Refuge System

Date

Marvin E. Moriarty

Regional Director, Region 5

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Date

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Type of action: Administrative

Location: Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

 Suffolk and Nassau Counties, New York

Lead agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service

Responsible official: Marvin E. Moriarty, Regional Director, Region 5

For further information: Thomas Bonetti, Planning Team Leader

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 5

300 Westgate Center Drive

Hadley, MA 01035

(413) 253-8307

northeastplanning@fws.gov

This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Long Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex (complex) is the culmination of a planning effort involving a variety of partners and 

communities. The CCP establishes 15-year management goals and objectives for wildlife and 

habitat, public use, and partnerships for the complex. The complex includes the Amagansett, 

Conscience Point, Elizabeth A. Morton, Oyster Bay, Seatuck, Target Rock, and Wertheim refuges, 

the Lido Beach Wildlife Management Area and the Sayville Unit of the Wertheim refuge. Staff 

from the refuge complex headquarters office at Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge in Suffolk 

County, New York will implement this plan for further protection and management of endangered, 

threatened, and other plant and animal species of concern, including migratory wildlife. The plan 

is designed to expand and improve opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation, and allow the 

complex to benefit from its proximity to New York City and urban communities.

The complex will increase existing programs to protect habitats and manage for the threatened 

piping plover, sandplain gerardia (a rare plant), American eel, mud and box turtles, wintering 

waterfowl, and neotropical migratory songbirds. Efforts would intensify to control non-native 

invasive species such as phragmites, and the complex would evaluate and implement new 

management practices to decrease insecticide use in marsh communities. Other highlights of the 

CCP include 1) constructing a new headquarters and visitor center at Wertheim National Wildlife 

Refuge that will also serve as an office for Region 5’s Long Island Field Office, part of the Division 

of Ecological Services; 2) strengthening interpretive and environmental education programs 

throughout the refuges; 3) expanding outreach efforts, such as public relations and volunteer 

programs; and 4) initiating a regulated early-season (September) hunt and other population 

control measures to manage over-abundant populations of resident Canada geese at Wertheim 

National Wildlife Refuge. The Service will actively pursue land acquisition opportunities within 

the refuges’ approved boundaries, as well as other land protection opportunities. However, this 

CCP does not propose Service acquisition of additional lands at this time.

Summary
The Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex will preserve, manage, and restore some 

of the last significant natural areas for wildlife on Long Island, New York. The Complex will 

comprise varied and important wildlife habitat, ranging from coastal systems to native grasslands 

to mature forests. These habitats, present in nine distinct units, will support threatened and 

endangered species in addition to hundreds of species of migratory birds and other wildlife within 

the Atlantic Flyway.

Located adjacent to the nation’s major media center, the Complex is an ideal setting to increase 

public awareness, understanding, and support of the National Wildlife Refuge System. We 

recognize that success is dependent on the Complex becoming an integral part of the community. 

We will work together with partners and local communities to protect refuge lands and wildlife 

from increasing pressures and threats. We will provide compatible priority wildlife-dependent 

recreational and educational opportunities. Through the use of the best scientific information and 

active habitat management, we will contribute to fulfilling the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System for future generations.

Vision Statement for the Refuge Complex

• Amagansett National Wildlife Refuge

• Elizabeth A. Morton National Wildlife Refuge

• Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge

• Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge

• Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge

• Conscience Point National Wildlife Refuge

• Lido Beach Wildlife Management Area

• Sayville Unit of Wertheim

• Target Rock National Wildlife Refuge

Long Island NWR Complex

P.O. Box 21, 360 Smith Road

Shirley, New York 11967

September 2006

Table of Contents

Chapter 1. Introduction

Purpose and Need for Plan......................................................................................................................................1-1

Project Area...............................................................................................................................................................1-2

History of Refuge Establishment, Acquisition, and Management Purposes....................................................1-3

National and Regional Mandates Guiding this Project........................................................................................1-6

Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding this Project.....................................................................................1-9

Existing Refuge Operational Plans ........................................................................................................................1-15

Vision Statement .......................................................................................................................................................1-16

Goals for the Complex ..............................................................................................................................................1-17

Chapter 2. The Planning Process 

The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process ..........................................................................................2-1

Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities......................................................................................................................2-3

Wilderness Review....................................................................................................................................................2-6

Issues Outside the Scope of this Planning Process ..............................................................................................2-6

Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Physical Environment ..............................................................................................................................................3-1

Biological Environment............................................................................................................................................3-5

History and Cultural Resources..............................................................................................................................3-55

Socioeconomic Environment....................................................................................................................................3-56

Refuge Complex Administration.............................................................................................................................3-62

Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementation

Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................................4-1

Relating Goals, Objectives, and Strategies............................................................................................................4-1

General Refuge Management..................................................................................................................................4-1

Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ..............................................................................................................4-6

Implementation, Monitoring, and Revision...........................................................................................................4-33

Glossary

Bibliography

Appendixes

Appendix A. Species Lists and Threatened or Endangered Species.................................................................A-1

Appendix B. Federal Laws and Mandates .............................................................................................................B-1

Appendix C. Compatibility Determinations ..........................................................................................................C-1

Appendix D. Wilderness Review.............................................................................................................................D-1

Appendix E. RONS/SAMMS ..................................................................................................................................E-1

Appendix F. Staffing Chart ......................................................................................................................................F-1

Appendix G. Conceptual Plans ................................................................................................................................G-1

Appendix H. Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form.....................................................................H-1

Appendix I. Consultation and Coordination with Others ....................................................................................I-1

Appendix J. Summary and Response to Public Comments ................................................................................J-1

Appendix K. Finding of No Significant Impact.....................................................................................................K-1

Acronyms (inside back cover)

Chapter 1

Introduction

Puropose and Need for Plan

Project Area

History of Refuge Establishment, Acquisition, and Management Purposes

National and Regional Mandates Guiding this Project

Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding this Project

Existing Refuge Operational Plans

Vision Statement

Goals for the Complex

















Black-crowned night heron

© Janet C. Zinn

This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Long Island National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex (Complex) was prepared pursuant to the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.; Refuge 

Improvement Act). An Environmental Assessment (EA), required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4347), was prepared concurrent 

with the draft CCP.

This final CCP presents the combination of management goals, objectives, and 

strategies that we believe will best achieve our vision for the Complex; contribute 

to the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) mission; achieve refuge 

purposes; fulfill legal mandates; address key issues; and incorporate sound 

principles of fish and wildlife management, and serve the American public. The 

CCP will guide management decisions and actions on the refuge over the next 15 

years. It will also be used as a tool to help the state of New York natural resource 

agencies, our conservation partners, local communities, and the public understand 

our priorities.

This document has 4 chapters and 11 appendixes. Chapter 1 introduces the plan 

and sets the stage for chapters 2 through 4. It

• describes the purpose and need for a CCP;

• identifies national, regional, and state plans that influenced this plan;

• highlights the purposes for establishing each refuge in the Complex and their land 

acquisition histories;

• presents the vision and goals for the Complex.

Chapter 2, “The Planning Process,” describes the planning process we followed, 

including public and partner involvement, in the course of developing this final 

plan.

Chapter 3, “Refuge and Resource Descriptions,” describes the existing physical, 

biological, and human environment.

Chapter 4, “Management Direction and Implementation,” presents the general 

refuge management actions , and the goals, objectives, and strategies that will 

guide decision-making and land management. It also outlines our staffing and 

funding needs to accomplish the management direction.

Developing a CCP is vital for the management of each refuge. This final CCP will 

provide strategic management direction over the next 15 years, by

• providing a clear statement of desired future conditions for habitat, wildlife, visitor 

services, and facilities;

• providing refuge neighbors, visitors, and partners with a clear understanding of the 

reasons for management actions;

• ensuring refuge management reflects the policies and goals of the System and legal 

mandates;

Purpose and 

Need for Plan

Purpose and Need for Plan

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 1-1
Chapter 1

1-2 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

• ensuring the compatibility of current and future public use;

• providing long-term continuity and direction for refuge management; and

• providing direction for staffing, operations, maintenance, and developing budget 

requests.

The need to develop a CCP for the Complex is two-fold. First, the Refuge 

Improvement Act requires that all national wildlife refuges have a CCP in place 

by 2012 to help fulfill the mission of the System. Second, the Complex lacks a 

master plan that clearly establishes priorities and ensures consistent, integrated 

management among its nine units.

Our vision statement and Complex-wide goals, management strategies, and 

actions will help us effectively manage natural resources and priority, wildlifedependent recreational uses. Involving the public and conservation partners will 

help us resolve persistent issues of non-wildlife-dependent public use, access, 

and management for threatened or endangered species. Those reasons clearly 

underscore the need for the type of strategic direction a CCP provides.

Project Area The Complex comprises seven national wildlife refuges, one wildlife management 

area, and one refuge sub-unit. Figure 1.1 below shows their locations.

Figure 1.1. The Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
We acquire refuge lands under a variety of legislative acts and administrative 

orders. Those authorities for transferring and acquiring land usually stipulate one 

or more purposes for obtaining it. In accordance with the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, these purposes define the basis and standards with which 

we establish and subsequently manage refuges. The Service acquired most of the 

refuges in the Complex under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715–715r) “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any 

other management purposes, for migratory birds.” That is the purpose of refuges 

acquired under this authority, unless otherwise noted. See appendix B for details. 

Table 1.1 depicts the size of each refuge and the year the Service acquired it. 

Amagansett National Wildlife Refuge graces the shore of the Atlantic Ocean 

on Long Island’s south fork in the town of East Hampton. We acquired the 36-

acre former lifeboat station in 1968, under authority of the “Transfer of Certain 

Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act” (16 U.S.C. 667b–667d) 

for “particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management 

program” by transfer from the U.S. Coast Guard. The refuge is situated adjacent 

to the town of East Hampton and wildlands owned and managed 

by The Nature Conservancy.

The protection and management of fragile shore habitat and 

wildlife give Amagansett special significance. A unique double 

dune system embodies marine sand beach, primary dunes, 

secondary dunes, swales, fens, bogs, and oak scrub. Some rare 

plants, including several orchids, occur on the refuge. The area 

serves as an important migration route for raptors, songbirds, 

and shorebirds; it also provides wintering grounds for the 

Ipswich sparrow, a race of the savannah sparrow. Piping plover 

find suitable habitat and forage here, and have also nested here 

as recently as 2005, as well as immediately to the west (see 

chapter 3, map 3-1).

Conscience Point National Wildlife Refuge can be found on the south fork of 

Long Island in the town of Southampton, bordered by other salt marshes in what 

is regionally known as the Cow Neck Complex. Low-density housing, agricultural 

land, and private game land also border this 60-acre refuge. The Service acquired 

Conscience Point in 1964 by donation from a private individual under the authority 

of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. 

The maintenance of a maritime grassland community, a habitat of regional 

significance, distinguishes Conscience Point. Neotropical migratory songbirds find 

breeding habitat at the refuge, and the wetlands support wintering black ducks 

and other migratory birds. Its other habitats include grassland, oak-beech forest, 

shrubland, kettle holes, freshwater marsh, and salt marsh (see chapter 3, map 3-2). 

The refuge also supports such federal-listed species as bald eagle and sandplain 

gerardia.

Elizabeth A. Morton National Wildlife Refuge, 187 acres on the north shore of 

Long Island’s south fork in the town of Southampton, came as a gift from Elizabeth 

A. Morton in 1954 under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. 

The refuge is located near Sag Harbor, and includes a peninsula one and a half 

History 

of Refuge 

Establishment, 

Acquisition, 

and 

Management 

Purposes

Table 1.1. Refuge Acquisition Year and Size

Acquired Refuge Name Acres

1947 Wertheim 2,572

1954 Morton 187

1964 Conscience Point 60

1967 Target Rock 80

1968 Amagansett 36

1968 Oyster Bay 3,204

1968 Seatuck 209

1969 Lido Beach 22

1992 Sayville 26

History of Refuge Establishment, Acquisition, and Management Purposes

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 1-3
miles long, locally known as Jessup’s Neck, which separates Little Peconic Bay 

from Noyack Bay. 

The north–south axis of the peninsula between Long Island’s two forks makes the 

refuge an important migration corridor for migratory shorebirds, raptors, and 

songbirds. State- and federal-listed threatened or endangered species, like piping 

plovers and least terns, find nesting and foraging habitat at Morton refuge (see 

chapter 3, maps 3-3 and 3-4).

Lido Beach Wildlife Management Area, a former Nike missile site, was obtained 

in 1969 in a transfer of federal property from the Department of the Army, which 

recognized the area’s “particular value in carrying out the national migratory 

bird management program.” The property totals 22 acres in Nassau County on 

the bay side of Hempstead’s Lido Beach. The area lies about 20 miles east of New 

York City and, like the rest of Hempstead Bay, is surrounded by dense residential 

development. The WMA is bordered by a public bathing beach to the south, a golf 

course to the west, Hempstead Bay to the north, and the Nike Environmental 

Education Center to the east.

The tidal wetlands of Lido Beach support wintering populations of black duck and 

Atlantic brant, and provide important breeding, migrating, and wintering habitat 

for other waterfowl, colonial nesting wading birds, raptors, and shorebirds (see 

chapter 3, map 3-5).

Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge was donated to the Service by the Town 

of Oyster Bay in 1968 as a habitat for migratory birds, particularly wintering 

waterfowl, under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. The 

refuge, totaling 3,204 acres from the bay bottom up to mean high water, is located 

on the north shore of Long Island. The waters and marshes of Oyster Bay refuge 

surround Sagamore Hill National Historic Site, home of Theodore Roosevelt, the 

founder of the first national wildlife refuge in 1903. 

Oyster Bay refuge is unique in the System, serving as a marine refuge rather than 

the more traditional terrestrial refuge; it comprises the waters and marshes of 

Oyster Bay and Cold Spring harbors. Those marine habitats support a variety of 

aquatic-dependent wildlife, especially migratory waterfowl of special focus (see 

chapter 3, maps 3-6 and 3-7).

Sayville, a disjunct sub-unit of Wertheim refuge, was established in 1992 by the 

transfer of a 26-acre parcel of vacant Federal Aviation Administration land through 

the General Services Administration under the authority of the Transfer of Certain 

Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act (16 U.S.C. 667b–667d) 

and the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531–1544, 87 Stat. 884). In 1990, 

Congress legislated the transfer of an additional 101-acre parcel from the FAA 

to the Service. That exchange was to be completed after the FAA had removed 

all buildings and improvements. Those have since been removed, but the FAA’s 

renewed interest in that location has delayed the transfer.

The unit is located in West Sayville, New York, about two miles inland from the 

Great South Bay. This is the only land-locked unit in the Complex, bordered on 

the north by an elementary school and small industry; on the east by residential 

Chapter 1

1-4 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
development; on the south by property of the Board of Cooperative Education 

Services; and on the west by athletic fields. The 26-acre unit is primarily pitch pine 

habitat. The 101-acre property currently hosts a viable population of the federallisted endangered plant sandplain gerardia—the largest population in the state 

and, possibly, in the Northeast (see chapter 3, map 3-8).

Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge was acquired in 1968 as a donation from the 

Peters family under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. The refuge, located 

in Islip on the south shore of Long Island, consists of 209 acres bordering the 

Great South Bay, and is separated from the Atlantic Ocean only by Fire Island. 

The Suffolk County Department of Parks, Recreation, and Conservation owns the 

property to the west; suburban development lies to the north; Champlin Creek lies 

to the east; and Great South Bay lies to the south.

With its diverse mix of upland and wetland habitat types, Seatuck hosts more than 

200 bird species, and serves as an oasis in a heavily developed urban area. Black 

ducks are one of the most common species of wintering waterfowl, and hundreds of 

migrating sandpipers forage in the salt pannes in the fall. Seatuck is being studied 

as a potential transplant site for sandplain gerardia (see chapter 3, maps 3-9 and 

3-10).

Target Rock National Wildlife Refuge was acquired in 1967 under the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act as a donation from the Eberstadt family, who maintained 

the land as a garden estate. The 80-acre refuge is located on the north shore of 

Long Island in the Village of Lloyd Harbor, 25 miles east of New York City.

Target Rock refuge consists of mature oak-hickory forest, a half-mile of rocky 

beach, a brackish pond and several vernal ponds. The beach and adjacent waters 

support black ducks and diving ducks; the uplands provide important habitat for 

migrating warblers (see chapter 3, map 3-11 and 3-12).

Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge, the headquarters of the Complex, comprises 

2,572 acres on the south shore of Long Island in Shirley, New York (see chapter 3, 

map 3-13 through 3-15). The Service acquired it in 1947 under the authorities of 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Act and the Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 

460k-460k-4), as a donation from Cecile and Maurice Wertheim, who maintained 

the area as a private waterfowl hunting reserve. In addition to the refuge purpose 

in the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, the Refuge Recreation Act specifies 

the authorized purposes of “(1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational 

development, (2) the protection of natural resources, and (3) the conservation of 

endangered species or threatened species.” An additional parcel was donated in 

1974, and the Service has spent more than $6 million in acquiring other tracts.

All of the refuges in the Complex are managed from Wertheim refuge. The largest 

contiguous wetland on Long Island, Wertheim supports wintering and nesting 

waterfowl and breeding Neotropical migrants, and protects the Carmans River 

Estuary. The Carmans River, which winds through the refuge, is a New York Statedesignated scenic river and a state-designated recreational river under its Wild 

Scenic and Recreational River Act. See appendix B for details.

History of Refuge Establishment, Acquisition, and Management Purposes

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 1-5
Chapter 1

1-6 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

This section highlights Service policy, legal mandates and resource plans, arranged 

from the national to the local level, that directly influenced the development of this 

CCP.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its Mission

National wildlife refuges are managed by the USFWS, part of the Department of 

Interior. The Service mission is 

“...working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, 

and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American 

people.”

The Service has specific federal trust responsibilities for migratory birds, 

threatened or endangered species, anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals, 

as well as for lands and waters administered by the Service for the management 

and protection of those resources. It also enforces federal wildlife laws and 

international treaties on importing and exporting wildlife, assists with state fish 

and wildlife programs, and helps other countries develop conservation programs.

The National Wildlife Refuge System, its Mission, and Policies

The Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands and waters set 

aside specifically for conserving wildlife and protecting ecosystems. More than 

545 national wildlife refuges, in every state and a number of U.S. Territories, 

protect more than 95 million acres. More than 40 million visitors annually hunt, 

fish, observe and photograph wildlife, or partake of environmental education and 

interpretation on refuges.

The passage of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

established a unifying mission for the System, a new process for determining 

compatible public use on refuges, and the requirement to prepare a comprehensive 

conservation plan for each refuge in the System. The Refuge Improvement Act 

states that, first and foremost, the System must focus on wildlife conservation. It 

further states that the national mission, coupled with the purpose(s) for which 

each refuge was established, will provide the principal management direction for 

each refuge. The mission of the System is

“...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the 

conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, 

wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats in the United States for the 

benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”

On public use, the Refuge Improvement Act declares that all existing or proposed 

public uses must be compatible with each refuge’s purpose. It highlights six 

wildlife-dependent public uses to receive enhanced consideration in CCPs. 

Those six uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation. The refuge manager determines the 

compatibility of an activity by evaluating its potential impact on refuge resources, 

insuring that the activity supports the System mission, and that the activity does 

not materially detract from or interfere with the refuge purpose.

National and 

Regional 

Mandates 

Guiding this 

Project
The Refuge Improvement Act also ensures that, for the first time, the public 

is formally involved in decisions on recreation and other public uses on units of 

America’s 95-million-acre System. The legislation requires the Secretary of the 

Interior to ensure that the mission of the System and the purposes of the individual 

refuges are carried out. It requires the Secretary to maintain the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System. The continued 

growth of the System is to be planned and directed in a way that will contribute to 

conserving the ecosystems of the United States.

The legislation further stipulates that each comprehensive conservation plan “shall 

identify and describe

(A) the purposes of each refuge comprising the planning unit–found in this chapter;

(B) the distribution, migration patterns, and abundance of fish, wildlife, and plant 

populations and related habitats in the planning unit–found in chapter 3;

(C) the archaeological and cultural values of the planning unit–also in chapter 3;

(D) such areas in the planning unit that are suitable for use as administrative sites or 

visitor facilities–found in chapter 4;

(E) significant problems that may adversely affect the populations and habitats of fish, 

wildlife, and plants in the planning unit and the actions necessary to correct or mitigate 

such problems–found in chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4; and

(F) opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses–found in chapter 4.”

Compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are legitimate and appropriate 

public uses of the System. The definitions of several key terms follow.

Compatible use: “...a wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a 

refuge that, in the sound professional judgment of the Refuge Manager, will not 

materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the 

System or the purposes of the refuge.”

Wildlife-dependent recreational use: “...a use of a refuge involving hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education and 

interpretation.”

Sound professional judgment: “...a finding, determination, or decision that 

is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management and 

administration, available science and resources, and adherence to the requirements 

of this Act and other applicable laws.”

Fulfilling the Promise

The vision statements and recommendations in the “Fulfilling the Promise” 

report (USFWS) helped guide our development of the goals, strategies and 

actions for this CCP. “This report on the National Wildlife Refuge System is the 

culmination of a year-long process involving teams of Service employees who 

examined the Refuge System within the framework of Wildlife and Habitat, 

National and Regional Mandates Guiding this Project

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 1-7
Chapter 1

1-8 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

People, and Leadership. The report was the focus of the first-ever System 

Conference held in Keystone, Colorado in October 1998, attended by every refuge 

manager in the country, other Service employees, and scores of conservation 

organizations.... The heart of the report is the collection of vision statements and 

42 recommendations....” 

Other Legal and Policy Mandates

The administration of national wildlife refuges is governed by various international 

treaties, federal laws, and regulations affecting land and water as well as 

the conservation and management of fish and wildlife resources. Policies for 

management options of refuges are further refined by the Secretary of the Interior 

and guidelines established by the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 

conform to key legislation affecting national wildlife refuges.

The Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 requires that any recreational use of refuge 

lands can be an appropriate incidental or secondary use if it is practicable and 

consistent with the primary objectives for which a refuge was established, and that 

those uses not interfere with other previously authorized operations.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 authorizes 

Secretaries of the Interior to permit uses of a refuge whenever they determine 

“that such uses are compatible with the major purposes for which such areas were 

established.”

Although the purpose for their establishment provides the foundation for 

managing refuges, they must also comply with a variety of other federal laws, 

Executive Orders, treaties, interstate compacts, and regulations on conserving and 

protecting natural and cultural resources. Appendix B summarizes some important 

federal laws governing refuge management, including the Clean Water Act, Clean 

Air Act, the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470–470b, 470c–470n), 

the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa–470ll), and the 

Endangered Species Act. The draft CCP/EA was written to fulfill compliance 

with NEPA. The Service Manual and Refuge Manual contain Service policies 

and guidance on planning and day-to-day refuge management. For additional 

information, you can access the Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the 

USFWS at http://laws.gws.vog/lawsdigest/indx.html. 

Morton Beach at Little Peconic Bay.

R. Parris/USFWS
North American Waterfowl Management Plan

The NAWMP outlines the strategy among the United States, Canada, and Mexico 

to restore waterfowl populations by protecting, restoring, and enhancing habitat 

in 11 U.S. Joint Venture Areas and three other Joint Ventures: Arctic Goose, 

Black Duck, and Sea Duck. Partnerships among federal, state and provincial 

governments, tribal nations, local businesses, conservation organizations, and 

individual citizens protect that habitat. The Complex lies in the Atlantic Coast Joint 

Venture, which has identified 6 focus areas of both wetlands and adjacent uplands 

for protection throughout Long Island (ACJV 2002). See figure 1.2.

Conservation 

Plans and 

Initiatives 

Guiding this 

Project

Because black ducks winter on Long Island, the goals and objectives of the Black 

Duck Joint Venture would also apply in managing the Complex. The Black Duck 

Joint Venture has identified coastal salt marsh habitats along the mid-upper 

Atlantic coast as important wintering habitat. For more information, visit http://

northeast.fws.gov/migratorybirds/ny_waterfowl_web_map.pdf.

Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation Plan: Physiographic Area 9, Southern 

New England

In 1990, Partners in Flight was conceived as a voluntary, international coalition of 

government agencies, conservation organizations, academic institutions, private 

industry, and other citizens dedicated to reversing the downward trends of 

declining species and “keeping common birds common.” The foundation of PIF’s 

long-term strategy for bird conservation is a series of scientifically based Landbird 

Conservation Plans. The goal of each PIF Landbird Conservation Plan is to ensure 

long term maintenance of healthy populations of native landbirds (Partners in 

Flight 2000).

The plan identifies focal species for each habitat type from which population and 

habitat objectives and conservation actions will be determined. We utilized this 

Figure 1.2 Long Island Waterfowl Focus Areas (ACJV 2002)

Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding this Project

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 1-9
Chapter 1

1-10 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

draft document for the list of priority species to consider in management. 

A final plan that will include management recommendations will help direct 

future landbird management on the Complex.

The Southern New England physiographic area 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. Urbanization and associated 

human activities severely threaten remaining high-priority habitats, especially 

maritime marshes and dunes, relict grasslands, and mature deciduous forests. 

In addition to many local threats to remaining breeding-bird habitats, this area 

contains numerous critical stopover sites for landbirds and shorebirds. Table 

1.2 lists focal shorebird species in the bird conservation region. The total value 

of those sites has not been fully assessed yet, and conservation strategies for 

priority species during stopover lag behind those for breeding species.

New York’s Important Bird Areas program has identified 29 key sites on 

Long Island, and is developing conservation strategies for them. Some specific 

conservation recommendations for Physiographic Area 9 follow.

• Complete intensive survey and monitoring for high-priority species to identify 

most important areas in need of protection.

• Identify and designate Bird Conservation Areas, in which long-term sustainability 

of priority bird populations is a primary management objective.

• Protect and restore coastal wetland habitats to enhance breeding and wintering 

populations of American black duck and ensure long-term sustainability of marsh 

sparrow populations.

• Protect and manage remaining mature forests to maximize benefits to cerulean 

warbler; e.g., preserve tallest trees, encourage maturing of canopy species, prevent 

fragmentation of existing forests.

• Identify critical sites for migration stopover; integrate habitat objectives into local 

land-use planning and outreach efforts (Partners in Flight 2000).

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan: Northern Atlantic Regional Shorebird Plan

Species of highest priority in this region include piping plover, American 

oystercatcher, red knot, whimbrel, American woodcock, and Eskimo curlew. 

Populations are known with some confidence for two high-priority species: 

breeding piping plovers and migrating red knots. Piping plovers nesting in 

the region numbered 1,135 pairs in 1997, or most (81 percent) of the Atlantic 

Coast population. An estimated 80 percent and possibly more of the New World 

populations of red knots and whimbrels migrate through the region each spring, 

making this Northern Atlantic region crucial in their survival (U.S. Shorebird 

Conservation Plan 2000).

Table 1.2. Focal Shorebird

Species for the Bird

Conservation Region

black-bellied plover

semipalmated plover

American oystercatcher

greater yellowlegs

lesser yellowlegs

solitary sandpiper

spotted sandpiper

whimbrel 

ruddy turnstone

red knot

sanderling

semipalmated sandpiper

least sandpiper

white-rump sandpiper

dunlin

short-billed dowitcher
Northeast Coastal Areas Study

Completed in August 1991, this 250-page study identified 40 major coastal habitat 

complexes in need of protection in southern New England and Long Island. The 

study assessed the status of the region’s living resources, and develops strategies 

to protect, conserve, and enhance the resources and their habitat complexes. 

Table 1.3 provides details of major habitat types in New York. Those habitat 

complexes extend from Cape Cod to Staten Island, and include Long Island 

Sound and the tidal reaches of the Connecticut River. The study identifies 153 

federal trust species and 15 significant types of coastal habitat. Trust species are 

federal-listed endangered or threatened species and candidate species, migratory 

birds, anadromous fish, and marine mammals. The study also emphasizes the 

need to promote and develop partnerships and cooperative agreements among all 

landowners, public and private, to most effectively and efficiently manage larger 

habitat complexes and their protection. This report has been used to set priorities 

for acquisition through the System and partnerships (USFWS 1991).

Significant Habitats and Habitat Complexes of the New York Bight Watershed

Completed in 1996, this 1,025-page document focuses on the regional geographic 

distribution and population status of more than 1,000 key marine, coastal and 

terrestrial species inhabiting the New York Bight watershed. The New York 

Bight includes the Atlantic coastlines of Long Island and New Jersey out to the 

continental shelf. The geographic scope of the study comprises the marine waters 

of the New York Bight, the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary, and the entire 

watershed of the Bight and Harbor, including the Hudson River up to the Troy 

Dam (USFWS 1996b).

The study assesses threats to the integrity of habitats and the species dependent on 

them, and identifies those habitats and species requiring both immediate and longterm protection, conservation, enhancement, or restoration. That information is 

being used to emphasize those sites to federal, state, regional, and local planners, 

resource managers, conservation commissions, regulatory authorities, and the 

many private conservation organizations throughout the region who, in turn, 

Table 1.3. Estimated acreage, percent of public ownership, and condition of major habitat types in New York.

Habitat type Acres Ownership* Condition**

Beach Front (high/low energy, sandflats, rocky beach) 37,200 20 1,2,3

Intertidal non-vegetated (mudflats, mud banks) 800,000 70

Intertidal vegetated (salt marshes) 25,100 70 4

Managed wetlands (impoundments, dredge) 600 100

Inland habitats (airports, pastures) 10,000 0 2

* Ownership: Estimated percent in public or conservation ownership

** Known Condition Issues: (1) Development threats (2) Human disturbance/Alternate management 

 (3) Degraded, polluted, etc. (4) Exotic vegetation

Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding this Project

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 1-11
Chapter 1

1-12 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

further analyze specific habitat areas where species are found in order to protect, 

conserve, and manage them (USFWS 1996b).

Ecosystem Conservation

During the last decade, we have emphasized ecosystem conservation, particularly 

the role of refuges in ecosystems, and their ability to affect the long-term 

conservation of natural resources. Typically using large river watersheds to define 

ecosystems, teams develop goals and priorities for research and management.

Long Island is split by the boundaries of the Hudson River/New York Bight 

ecosystem, and the Connecticut River/Long Island Sound Ecosystem. The latter 

covers the north shore of Long Island including Oyster Bay and Target Rock 

refuges.

Long Island Sound Study

Long Island Sound belongs to a system of 28 estuaries included in the National 

Estuary Program under section 320 of the Clean Water Act. The LISS is a 

cooperative effort involving researchers, regulators, user groups and other 

concerned organizations and individuals. The study describes ongoing programs 

and lists commitments and recommendations for actions that specifically address 

the Sound’s priority problems. Approved in September 1994, the Comprehensive 

Conservation and Management Plan for Long Island Sound is a product of the 

LISS. That plan calls for a sustained, cooperative effort among the states of 

Connecticut and New York, the Environmental Protection Agency and other 

federal agencies, local governments, and the private sector (LISS 2001).

Migratory Bird Program Strategic Plan

The Migratory Bird Program completed a 10-year strategic plan in January 2004. 

Refuges provide high quality habitat for many migratory birds. The MBP seeks to 

conserve and manage migratory bird populations and their habitats. Two strategies 

to achieve those goals are bird population monitoring and habitat management. 

Refuges are currently conducting biological surveys and managing habitat. The 

program recognizes the opportunity for using standardized monitoring protocols 

and habitat assessments on refuges, contributing to region-wide assessments of 

population trends and effects of habitat management on migratory birds (USFWS 

2004).

North American Bird Conservation Initiative

The NABCI brings together the Partners in Flight, shorebird, waterbird, 

and waterfowl plans in a coordinated effort to protect and restore all native 

bird populations and their habitats in North America. All bird conservation 

partnerships reduce redundancy in the structure, planning and implementation 

of conservation projects. The initiative uses bird conservation regions to guide 

landscape-scale, science-based approaches to conserving birds and their habitats.

The New England/Mid-Atlantic Coast BCR has the densest human population of 

any region in the country. Much of the land formerly cleared for agriculture is now 
either forest or in residential use. The highest priority birds are in coastal wetland 

and beach habitats, including the salt marsh sharptailed sparrow and Nelson’s 

sharp-tailed sparrow, seaside sparrow, piping plover, American oystercatcher, 

American black duck, and black rail. The region includes critical migration sites 

for red knot, ruddy turnstone, sanderling, semi-palmated sandpiper, and dunlin. 

Most of the continental population of the endangered roseate tern nests on islands 

off the southern New England states. Other terns and gulls nest in large numbers, 

and large mixed colonies of herons, egrets, and ibis may form on islands in the 

Delaware and Chesapeake Bay regions.

Estuarine complexes and embayments created behind barrier beaches in this 

BCR are extremely important to wintering and migrating waterfowl, including 

about 65 percent of the total wintering American black duck population, along with 

large numbers of greater scaup, tundra swan, gadwall, brant, and canvasback. 

The exploitation and pollution of Chesapeake Bay and other coastal zones and the 

accompanying loss of submerged aquatic vegetation have significantly reduced 

their value to waterfowl (USFWS 2000). Visit http://www.nabci-us.org/aboutnabci/

bcrdescrip.pdf for more information.

State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan

In Fall 2001, Congress established a new State Wildlife Grants program that 

provided 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 Plan by October 2005. The New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation developed a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy that addressed the wildlife species in greatest need of conservation in the 

state. The development and submission of this strategy to the Service establishes 

New York’s eligibility to receive State Wildlife Grant funds, which are apportioned 

by the Service.

The CWCS utilizes best available data on the status of fish and wildlife species to 

define a vision and establish a strategy for state wildlife conservation and funding. 

The objectives and goals defined within the CWCS address the entire diversity 

of fish and wildlife and their habitats. The CWCS is a collaborative effort among 

agencies, organizations and individuals with an interest in New York’s wildlife. 

It is Service policy to issue a final conservation plan for each unit, to the extent 

practicable, consistent with fish and wildlife conservation plans of the state in 

which the refuge is located.

Sandplain Gerardia (Agalinas acuta) Recovery Plan

The recovery plan for the federal-listed endangered sandplain gerardia identifies 

the most significant factor leading to the decline of the species as the loss or 

degradation of suitable habitat. Habitat degradation and loss is caused by 

increased development, vegetative succession, and changing historical disturbance 

regimes. Furthermore, agricultural development and sand and gravel mining 

have destroyed large amounts of potential habitat. Several sites in New York, 

particularly on Long Island, are identified as areas where sandplain gerardia 

grows. The plan describes the ecology of the species and suggests management 

Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding this Project

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 1-13
Chapter 1

1-14 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

techniques for recovery (USFWS 1989). We used the recovery plan while 

formulating our objectives for sandplain gerardia.

Piping Plover, Atlantic Coast Population, Revised Recovery Plan

The piping plover is the only federal-listed endangered or threatened species that 

currently breeds on refuge lands in the Complex. The primary objective of the 

revised recovery program is to remove the Atlantic coast piping plover population 

from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants

• by achieving well-distributed increases in numbers and productivity of breeding pairs, 

and 

• providing for the long-term protection of breeding and wintering plovers and their 

habitats.

The Recovery Plan incorporates guidelines developed in 1994 by our Ecological 

Services Division, and includes guidelines for managing recreational activities 

in piping plover breeding habitat. Although those recommendations are not 

regulatory, they continue to serve as our best professional advice on complying 

with the Endangered Species Act (USFWS 1996a).

Roseate Tern Recovery Plan, Northeastern Population (First Update 1998)

This revised roseate tern recovery plan was completed in 1998. The plan 

summarizes life history, ecology, population status, and known threats to the 

recovery of this federal-listed endangered species. The following recovery 

objectives were established:

Primary objective: To increase the Northeast nesting population of roseate 

terns (U.S. and Canada) to 5,000 breeding pairs. This total should include at least 

six large colonies with high productivity within the species’ current geographic 

distribution.

Secondary objectives:

• To expand the number of roseate tern breeding colonies to 30 or more sites; and, 

• To expand the breeding range to historically occupied areas south of the current range.

Over 50 specific tasks are identified that need to be undertaken to meet recovery 

objectives. We used this plan as we developed management goals and objectives for 

roseate terns (USFWS 1998).

Regional Wetlands Concept Plan - Emergency Wetlands Resources Act

In 1986, Congress wrote the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act to promote the 

conservation of our nation’s wetlands. The Act directed the Department of Interior 

to develop a National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan identifying the location 

and types of wetlands that should receive priority for acquisition by federal and 

state agencies using Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriations. In 1990, 

our Northeast Region completed a Regional Wetlands Concept Plan identifying a 

total of 850 wetland sites in the region that warrant consideration for acquisition 
due to wetland values. The wetland values, functions, and potential threats for each 

site were cited; 150 sites in the State of New York were listed. Of those, 53 sites are 

located in Suffolk County and 3 in Nassau County (USFWS 1990).

Part 4, chapter 3 of the Refuge System Manual (1985) lists more than 25 stepdown management plans generally required on most refuges. Step-down plans 

describe specific management actions refuges will follow to achieve objectives or 

implement management strategies. Some require annual revision, while others are 

revised on a 5- or 10-year schedule. Some require additional NEPA analysis, public 

involvement, and compatibility determinations before they can be implemented. 

Table 1.4 outlines the status of the step-down plans for the Complex.

Existing 

Refuge 

Operational 

Plans

Habitat and Population Management Plans

The Complex is currently developing a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) with 

other national wildlife refuges in Bird Conservation Region 30. The HMP will 

provide specific guidance for the implementation of management strategies such 

as invasive species control and habitat monitoring efforts. Seatuck has a deer 

population management plan and a draft exists at Wertheim. Both refuges have 

mosquito management plans. Such plans are vital to the long-term, comprehensive 

management of these resources.

Resource Protection and Visitor Safety Plan

Some current problems on refuges throughout the Complex include trespassing, 

illegal construction, vandalism, littering/dumping, dog-walking, and homeless 

encampments. Thus, we need increased enforcement and outreach for resource 

management issues associated with public access, public effects, threatened or 

endangered species protection, deer management, feeding wildlife, and mosquito 

control.

Visitor Services Plan 

Our Public Use Plan is grossly out of date. More and more, the Service 

is recognizing the importance of visitors to national wildlife refuges. The 

Improvement Act mandates providing wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities 

Table 1.4. Status of step-down plans for the Complex

Plans now up-to-date Plans needing revision Plans yet to be written

Vertebrate Pest Control 

(Seatuck)

Fire Management 

Hunting (Wertheim)

Public Use* Land Protection

Habitat Management

Law Enforcement†

Visitor Services‡ 

Hunting

* Public Use Plan will be updated and replaced by Visitor Services Plan

†to include plans for crowd control and search and rescue

‡to include plans for wildlife-dependent recreation, outreach, education signage, and facilities 

maintenance

Existing Refuge Operational Plans

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 1-15
Chapter 1

1-16 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Early in the planning process, our team developed a draft vision statement to 

provide a guiding philosophy and sense of purpose for the CCP. It qualitatively 

described the desired future character of the Complex through 2015 and beyond. It 

has been refined throughout the planning process with input from our partners and 

the public. It will guide program emphases and priorities at the Complex.

The Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex will preserve, 

manage, and restore some of the last significant natural areas for 

wildlife on Long Island, New York. The Complex will comprise varied 

and important wildlife habitat, ranging from coastal systems to native 

grasslands to mature forests. These habitats, present in nine distinct 

units, will support threatened and endangered species in addition to 

hundreds of species of migratory birds and other wildlife within the 

Atlantic Flyway.

Located adjacent to the nation’s major media center, the Complex is an 

ideal setting to increase public awareness, understanding, and support 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System. We recognize that success is 

dependent on the Complex becoming an integral part of the community. 

We will work together with partners and local communities to protect 

refuge lands and wildlife from increasing pressures and threats. 

We will provide compatible priority wildlife-dependent recreational 

and educational opportunities. Through the use of the best scientific 

information and active habitat management, we will contribute to 

fulfilling the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System for future 

generations.

for the public, as long as those opportunities do not conflict with wildlife or 

habitat management activities. To that end, a needs assessment and subsequent 

comprehensive visitor services plan that includes plans for wildlife-dependent 

recreation, outreach, education, signage, and facilities maintenance is needed to 

better serve visitors to these public lands. 

Vision 

Statement
Our planning team developed the following goals for the Complex after reviewing 

applicable laws and policies, regional plans, the vision statement, the purpose of 

each refuge, and public comments. All of the goals fully comply with and support 

national and regional mandates and policy.

In order to provide protection and achieve viable population levels for endangered 

species and migratory birds and fish, the following four habitat goals have 

been proposed. They will help protect, restore and enhance the native habitats 

necessary and maximize their use by endangered species and migratory birds and 

fish:

Improve the biological diversity and integrity of upland cover types to 

sustain high quality habitat for migratory passerine birds.

Restore the biological health of aquatic habitats to high quality 

conditions on the Complex salt marshes, bays, tidal tributaries, and 

impoundments to benefit waterfowl and shorebirds dependent on these 

systems, while also supporting other native, wetland-dependent species. 

Restore and increase the biological diversity and integrity of native 

grasslands to foster endangered plant recovery and the communities 

upon which they depend.

Enhance the functionality of coastal strand habitats as they relate to 

beach-nesting colonial water birds and shorebirds to meet optimal 

population levels.

To increase community support by raising public and partner awareness and 

understanding of the Complex and its wildlife and habitat conservation is 

important. To enhance visitor opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation that 

do not conflict with resource protection or management programs, and to apply 

partnerships in the areas of resource conservation and public use, we propose the 

following two goals:

Provide priority wildlife-dependent recreational and educational 

opportunities when compatible with the resource and available funding.

Communicate and collaborate with local communities and partners 

throughout Long Island to promote the National Wildlife Refuge System 

and the Complex.

Goals for the 

Complex

Goal 1

Goal 2

Goal 3

Goal 4

Goal 5

Goal 6

Goals for the Complex

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 1-17

Chapter 2

The Planning Process

The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process

Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities

Wilderness Review

Issues Outside the Scope of this Planning Process









Snow geese

© Janet C. Zinn

Service policy establishes an eight-step planning process that also facilitates 

compliance with NEPA (602 FW 3), as illustrated in figure 2.1. Each step is 

described in detail in the planning plicy and CCP training materials. While 

the figure suggests these steps are discreet, there can be 2-3 steps happening 

concurrently. For more details on the planning process, please visit http://policy.

fws.gov/602fw3.html.

Effective conservation begins with community involvement. We used a variety of 

public involvement techniques to ensure that our future management of the refuge 

would reflect the issues, concerns and opportunities expressed by the public. 

The 

Comprehensive 

Conservation 

Planning 

Process

The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 2-1

We held Open Houses and Public Information Meetings throughout Suffolk and 

Nassau Counties at five different locations in fall 2000, advertised locally through 

news releases, paid advertisements, and through our mailing list. The Open 

House sessions were for people to learn informally about the project and have 

their questions or concerns addressed in a one-on-one setting. The evening Public 

Information Meeting sessions usually included a slideshow presentation about 

the refuge, a brief review of the System and our planning process, and a questionFigure 2.1. The Comprehensive Conservation Planning process and its relationship to the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Chapter 2

2-2 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

and-answer session. We encouraged all participants to express their opinions and 

suggestions. Those public meetings allowed us to gather information and ideas 

from local residents, adjacent landowners, and various organizations and agencies.

We developed an Issues Workbook to encourage written comments on such topics 

as wildlife habitats, exotic nuisance species, and public access to refuge lands, and 

mailed it to a diverse group of more than 1,500 people on our mailing list, gave it to 

people who attended a public meeting, and distributed it to anyone who requested 

one. More than 100 people returned completed workbooks.

In June 2006, we completed Step E: “Prepare Draft Plan and NEPA Document” 

and released a draft CCP/EA for a 30-day public review and comment. In addition, 

we held three public meetings/open houses June 26-June 28, 2006. We summarize 

those public meetings, the public comments we received, and our responses to 

comments in appendix J In some cases, our response resulted in a modification 

to alternative B, our preferred alternative. Our modifications included additions, 

corrections, or clarifications which we have incorporated into this final CCP. 

Our Regional Director has signed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) 

which certifies that this final CCP has met agency compliance requirements and 

will achieve refuge purposes and help fulfill the Refuge System mission (appendix 

K). It also documents his determination that implementing this CCP will not have 

a significant impact on the human environment, and therefore, an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) is not required.

The CCP must be formally revised every 15 years, but earlier if it is determined 

that conditions affecting the refuge have changed significantly. We will periodically 

monitor the plan to ensure that its strategies and decisions are being accomplished. 

We will use that data collected in routine inspections or programmatic evaluations 

to continually update and adjust management activities.

We held a series of three public meetings and open houses on June 26-June 28, 2006.

M. Lin/USFWS
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 2-3

Issues, 

Concerns, and 

Opportunities

These documents will be made available to all interested parties. Implementation 

can begin immediately.

Public and partner meetings and further team discussions produced the key issues 

briefly described below. In chapter 4, we present the general refuge management 

actions, and the goals, objectives, and strategies that we designed to address these 

issues. 

Managing Threatened or Endangered Species and Other Species and Habitats of 

Special Concern

Protecting federal-listed endangered or threatened species is integral in the 

fundamental mission of the System. Other federal trust species of primary concern 

include migratory birds, anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals. As part 

of the CCP process we initiated intra-service consultation with our Ecological 

Service’s program to evaluate potential impacts of our proposed management 

to threatened or endangered species. We completed the intra-service section 7 

biological evaluation form and included it as appendix H.

Piping plover eggs

R. Parris/USFWS

Controlling Invasive Species

Invasive upland plants are a relatively recent concern at the Complex. Limited 

control began in 2002. Invasive plants are a threat because they displace native 

plant and animal species, degrade wetlands and other natural communities, and 

reduce natural diversity and wildlife habitat values by out-competing native species 

for light, water, and nutrients.

Because staff at the Complex are so familiar with its refuges, they have a solid 

sense of the invasive species present, although they have not mapped their 

locations. Invasive plants are distributed extensively over each of the refuges, 

and threaten both aquatic and terrestrial systems. Phragmites (Phragmites 

australis), or common reed, dominates virtually all of the more than 300 acres 

of brackish marsh community at Wertheim refuge, and upland species such as 

Asiatic bittersweet, an invasive vine, are overtaking grasslands and are beginning 

Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
Chapter 2

2-4 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

to strangle trees in forested areas. Other invasive plants found at the Complex 

include multiflora rose, Russian olive, and Japanese wisteria. 

Once invasive plants have become established, their characteristic abilities to 

establish easily, reproduce prolifically, and disperse readily make getting rid of 

them expensive and labor-intensive. Many of them cause measurable economic 

impacts, particularly in agricultural fields. Preventing new invasions is extremely 

important for maintaining biodiversity and native plant populations. Controlling 

affected areas will require extensive partnerships with adjacent landowners and 

state and local government agencies.

Invasive species that may pose a threat to refuge resources in the future include 

the cabomba (Carolina sandwort), perennial pepperweed, water chestnut, Asian 

long-horned beetle, and northern snakehead.

Managing Overabundant Wildlife Populations

Overabundant species, both native and non-native, may degrade habitat quality 

or the overall integrity of an ecological community. Native species become 

overabundant when their populations exceed the range of natural fluctuation and 

the ability of the habitat to support them. Overabundant species like red fox and 

raccoon may also displace or prey upon species that are being restored like the 

piping plover. 

The non-native mute swan inhabits the Carmans River down to the mouth of the 

Great South Bay year-round. Mute swans feed on submerged aquatic vegetation 

(SAV). While foraging, each bird consumes an average of eight pounds of SAV 

per day, including leaves, stems, roots, stolons, and rhizomes (DNR Statewide 

Management Plan, State of Maryland April, 2003).

Mute swans consume large amounts of SAV that might otherwise be available to 

native waterfowl. This competition for space and food imposed by mute swans 

reduces the carrying capacity of breeding, staging, and wintering habitats for 

native species of migratory waterfowl in the Carmans River where mute swans are 

established.

Resident Canada geese are well adapted to suburban environments and their 

populations have generally increased throughout New York. Resident Canada 

goose populations are high enough to have negatively impacted plantings at 

wetland restoration sites on, and adjacent to the refuge lands. They are also an 

important game animal, and can provide recreational opportunities for New York 

hunters.

White-tailed deer, a native and overabundant species, are particularly a concern. 

Dense populations of deer consume all palatable vegetation within reach, leaving 

“browse lines.” Adjacent landowners complain about deer impacts on landscaping, 

the increase in vehicle-deer collisions, and the threat of Lyme disease from deer 

ticks.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 2-5

Controlling Mosquitoes

The use of chemical compounds to control mosquitoes is a controversial topic 

among Suffolk County residents. The Complex is working with Suffolk County 

Vector Control to more rigorously manage mosquito populations. One alternative 

to chemical control is Open Marsh Water Management (OMWM) on the refuges, 

which we initiated in winter 2004. OMWM is designed to restore the natural 

tidal flow in the marshes which reduces available mosquito breeding habitat. 

Mosquitoes and ticks may pose a health risk to humans, but are also part of the 

ecological system. Mosquitoes are a particularly important food source for aquatic 

invertebrates, waterfowl, and fish; and by using OMWM techniques, this food 

network is supported while reducing the human health risks associated with large 

numbers of mosquitoes.

Establishing Hunting Opportunities at the Complex

Hunting surfaced in the scoping process as a key issue, one raised by Service 

personnel, DEC biologists, and individuals both for and against expanding hunting 

opportunities on the Complex. The Service views managed hunts in areas where 

there are overabundant populations as an effective tool for regulating them. 

Furthermore, hunting is a valid wildlife-dependent recreational use as defined by 

the Refuge Improvement Act. Responses generally agree that the overabundance 

of deer is a concern in Long Island, reflected in the increased numbers of vehicledeer collisions, increased complaints about deer browsing on residential landscape 

plantings, visible impacts on native vegetation, and concern about contracting 

Lyme disease.

Those opposed to hunting cited concerns over public safety, disturbance and 

harm to other wildlife species, and the impact on visitors engaged in other public 

uses. The latter concern arises from the likelihood that significant portions of 

the refuges, due to their small sizes and configurations, would be closed to other 

activities during hunting. Some expressed the opinion that the refuges should 

function as a sanctuary for all native species, and that hunting is inconsistent with 

that function.

Increased Visibility and Partnership Communications

The Service recognizes the need to improve the support and recognition of the 

Friends of Wertheim and establish other friends groups. Establishing a new 

volunteer program, initiating additional partnerships and, if necessary, formalizing 

existing partnerships will all help achieve the goals of the CCP.

Developing a Refuge Complex Headquarters and Visitor Center

The Complex lacks adequate funding and personnel to provide all of the programs 

and services desired by the public and to effectively meet the goals for this CCP. 

The current headquarters does not have enough office space to accommodate even 

existing staff, and the visitor services area is limited to one rack of literature in 

the reception area. The alternatives compare different funding and staffing levels 

based on their proposed management strategies for dealing with the issues.

Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
Chapter 2

2-6 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Many of the respondents in the scoping phase of planning felt strongly that 

more refuge staff should be present during peak visitation to increase resource 

protection and improve visitor services. Respondents also felt existing visitor 

facilities including kiosks and interpretive signs on trails should be improved. 

Other recommendations to increase visibility include more visitor contact stations, 

increasing wildlife interpretation and environmental educational opportunities, 

a better location for a headquarters office, developing a visitor center for the 

Complex, increasing support for a volunteer program, and increasing community 

involvement.

Service planning policy requires a wilderness review to determine if any lands 

and waters held in fee title ownership are suitable to be proposed for designation 

as a Wilderness Area. Some of the eligibility criteria include lands that are 5,000 

contiguous acres or at least large enough to make it practical to preserve and 

use the land in an unimpaired condition, or a roadless island. The planning team 

determined that none of the nine units met the minimum criteria identified in the 

Wilderness Act due to their small size and many permanent roads. Therefore, this 

CCP does not further analyze their suitability for wilderness designation. The 

results of the wilderness inventory are included in appendix D

Worth noting, just south of Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge lies the “Otis Pike 

Fire Island High Dune Wilderness,” the only federal-designated wilderness area 

in New York. It is part of Fire Island National Seashore operated by the National 

Park Service. That wilderness area covers 1,363 acres over a 7-mile stretch along 

the south shore of Long Island.

This CCP does not consider proposals for new, non-wildlife-dependent public uses. 

Service policy and the Refuge Improvement Act state that incompatible or nonwildlife-dependent recreation will be eliminated as expeditiously as practicable, 

with few exceptions. The Refuge Manual (8 RM 9.1; 04/82) specifically mentions the 

need to phase out non-wildlife-dependent activities such as swimming, sunbathing, 

surfing, motorized boating, jogging, bicycling, and horseback riding. Following 

public review and comment, the Service published a final compatibility policy in 

Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 202, pp. 62484–62496 (603 FW 2) on October 18, 2000. 

That final rule provides more detail on our process for determining which activities 

are compatible with a refuge’s establishment purpose and management goals.

The Federal Register published on June 26, 2006 a Notice of Availability for a new 

policy regarding appropriate refuge uses. The purpose of the policy is to establish a 

procedure for finding when uses other than the six wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses are appropriate for further consideration to be allowed on a refuge. The new 

policy also provides procedures for review of existing uses. As the policy was not 

yet incorporated into the draft CCP/EA and available for public review, we have 

not included a review of appropriateness in this final CCP. However, future uses 

will adhere to the new policy, and a finding of appropriateness will be the first step 

in deciding whether we will allow a proposed use or continue, expand, renew, or 

extend an existing use on a refuge.

Issues Outside 

the Scope of 

this Planning 

Process

Wilderness 

Review
Chapter 3

Refuge and Resource Descriptions

Physical Environment

Biological Environment

History and Cultural Resources

Socioeconomic Environment

Refuge Complex Administration











Monarch on kobold spike gayfeather

John Mosesso, Jr./NBII

Water Quality

All of the refuges but Sayville are associated with some source of water. The three 

major water bodies that fall under the jurisdiction of the Complex are the Carmans 

River, Oyster Bay, and the Great South Bay. The Carmans River is the largest 

undeveloped estuary system remaining on Long Island, and contains habitat 

vital for shellfish, migratory finfish and waterfowl. A local favorite for fishing and 

paddling, this 11-mile-long river flows into Bellport Bay in the eastern portion 

of Great South Bay. Wertheim refuge protects a 3.4-mile stretch of the Carmans 

River estuary by preserving and protecting its surrounding wetlands that filter 

pollution. The State of New York has designated that lower section a Wild and 

Scenic River. Yaphank Creek, also at Wertheim refuge, still has native salters 

(trout) because of the excellent water quality.

The Suffolk County Department of Health Services and the Suffolk County 

Community Oversight Committee assessed the river and reported that it has good 

water quality on the whole (Citizens Campaign for the Environment 2003). Their 

assessment includes their analysis of stream sediment and surface water samples. 

Tests were completed for volatile organic chemicals, gross alpha and gross beta 

indicators of radionuclide contamination, pesticides and heavy metals. Visit http://

www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/ for more information on radionuclide 

contamination.

However, areas of concern include nitrogen and coliform in the water column and 

organic compounds in groundwater. Water quality data collected by the SCDHS 

at the USGS gauging station on the Carmans River at Yaphank indicates total 

nitrogen concentrations in the range of 1–2 ppm, which is higher than those 

observed for the Peconic River (Spinello et al. 1993). The mouth of the river is 

presently closed to shellfishing because of high coliform counts. Inputs from road 

runoff and waterfowl, including excessive numbers of mute swans, tend to be 

leading sources of coliform bacteria. Traces of 1,1,1–trichloroethane and other 

dry-cleaning solvents have also been detected in ground water plumes that feed 

the Carmans River and its eastern tributaries (SCDHS date unavailable). Thus, 

despite its protected status, the river represents a significant source of nitrogen 

and possibly other contaminants in the poorly flushed Bellport Bay (Central Pine 

Barrens Joint Planning and Policy commission 1996).

The proximity of suburban development increasingly threatens the Carmans River 

watershed with non-point source pollution, which could lead to degraded fisheries 

and continue the closure of local shellfish beds. Polluted storm water runoff is the 

most widespread water quality problem along the southern shore of Long Island 

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2005).

The quality of life in the coastal communities of Oyster Bay and Cold Spring 

Harbor depends on the health of the bodies of water around them. With that in 

mind, Friends of the Bay has developed a volunteer water quality monitoring 

program, in cooperation with the Service, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and local 

governments and volunteer monitoring groups around Long Island Sound. Each 

week, trained volunteers and environmental scientists monitor various components 

Physical 

Environment

Physical Environment

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3-1
Chapter 3

3-2 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

of the marine ecosystem. The parameters they track include water temperature, 

clarity, salinity, dissolved oxygen and, most recently, coliform bacteria.

Although no single test can accurately predict the health of this complex 

ecosystem, dissolved oxygen is a good indicator of overall water quality. The 

monitoring by Friends of the Bay indicates that Oyster Bay and Cold Spring 

Harbor generally are healthy. However, monitoring at all of the sites failed to 

meet the New York State dissolved oxygen standard at least once in 1999, and Mill 

Neck Creek, an Oyster Bay tributary, is closed year-round to shell fishing. Visit 

the Friends of the Bay Web page at http://www.friendsofthebay.org/programs/

waterquality.asp.

Topography, Geology and Soils

Long Island can be categorized as generally flat, low-elevation terrain. Elevation 

ranges from sea level to 60 ft. above sea level; the highest points are located on 

the moraines along east-west axes on the north shore and the mid-section of Long 

Island. The topography south of the moraines is flat, with a south-facing aspect. 

The topography north of the moraines is generally flat or rolling, with a northfacing aspect. Slopes are gradual at most Long Island sites, with the exception of 

the coastal headland habitats that have extreme slopes. Those provide an abrupt 

edge between terrestrial vegetation, eroded terrestrial bluffs, and strand habitats. 

The Target Rock, Oyster Bay, and Morton refuges have headland habitats.

The soils of Long Island are less than 12,000 years old, and reflect their glacial 

parent materials. The soils north of the moraines, i.e., those of Conscience 

Point, Oyster Bay, Morton, and Target Rock, are medium to coarse textured 

and moderately well drained. Moraine topography tends to be rolling. An outwash 

plain south of the moraine, where Lido Beach, Seatuck, Sayville, Wertheim, and 

Amagansett are located, is coarse textured, excessively drained, infertile, and flat. 

Sandy loams predominate, but soils range from loams to sands. 

Air Quality

Air quality is important, not only for our health, but also for the health of fish 

and wildlife species and their habitats. The air pollution emitted by power plants, 

factories, paper mills, vehicles, fires, and other sources can harm those natural 

resources. Air pollutants can have serious effects on animals, plants, lakes, 

streams, soils, and visibility across the many acres managed by the Service. 

Pursuant to the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977, the Service has an affirmative 

responsibility to protect air-quality-related values on national wildlife refuges, 

with special emphasis on Class 1 Wilderness Areas. Those are areas in excess 

of 5,000 acres that were formally designated as Wilderness before August 1977. 

However, no Class I areas lie near any portion of refuge lands or waters on Long 

Island.

The type and amount of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere, the size and 

topography of the air basin, and the prevailing meteorological conditions determine 

air quality at any location in the atmosphere. The EPA designates an area as being 

in “attainment” for a pollutant if ambient concentrations of that pollutant are below 

the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (cf. 40 CFR 50), and “non-attainment” 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3-3

if violations of the NAAQS occur. In areas where insufficient data are available to 

determine attainment status, designations are listed as unclassified. Unclassified 

areas are treated as attainment areas for regulatory purposes.

Air quality management in the New Jersey-New York-Connecticut Interstate 

Air Quality Control Region, which includes Nassau and Suffolk Counties and the 

entire Complex, is in attainment with NAAQS for five of the six criteria pollutants: 

sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, lead, and carbon monoxide 

(NYSDEC 2001). The counties only exceeded the NAAQS for the sixth criteria 

pollutant, ozone, referenced in 40 CFR 81. Ozone most likely is high as a result of 

the ultraviolet oxidation of hydrocarbons produced by vehicles.

The nearest significant source of hazardous or criteria pollutants is the New York 

City area, located approximately 60 miles west of Complex headquarters. Based on 

the data collected and referenced in 40 CFR 81.333, the area falls within applicable 

Federal and State ambient air quality standards, with the exception of ozone. 

Climate and Weather

The Atlantic Ocean greatly modifies the climate of Long Island, which is 

categorized as humid continental. Continental influences dominate the climate, and 

the proximity of the ocean produces a significant maritime influence. Those climatic 

characteristics result in an extended period of freeze-free temperatures, a reduced 

range in both diurnal and annual temperature, and heavy precipitation in winter 

relative to that of summer as compared to other areas in southern New York.

Temperatures are hottest in July and August and coldest in January and February. 

Daily high temperatures above 90°F occur on average 10 days a summer, and 

the growing season runs between 200 and 210 days, or from March through 

September. A temperature at 0°F or lower is recorded one or two days annually. 

The snow season lasts from late December through early March; snowfall averages 

26 inches annually. Precipitation is reduced in June, July, and September; months 

of high precipitation include March, August, November, and December. Yearly 

rainfall averages 43.4 inches. Relative humidity varies daily: it ranges from a 

minimum of 20 percent to a high of 100 percent, with a mean of 60 percent during 

the 1300 hour period.

A sea breeze is a common local occurrence on most of the coastal refuges. Although 

winds blow from all directions, winds with a westerly component are most common. 

Wind speeds tend to be higher in winter and spring than in summer and autumn. 

The hurricane and tropical storm season extends from August through early 

October.

Ecological Processes

Historically and ecologically, fire has played the dominant role in shaping the 

pattern of Long Island’s terrestrial vegetation, and it continues to be the major 

factor influencing that vegetation (Olsvig et al. 1979). Fire is also a necessary 

ecological process in maintaining Long Island’s vegetative communities. 

Ecologically, the main processes influencing that terrestrial vegetation are 

wildfire and its suppression, with soil substrate determining the types of plants 

Physical Environment
Chapter 3

3-4 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

that may become established in a given area. A second set of processes that also 

impact terrestrial vegetative patterns are major storms, forest pests like gypsy 

moths, and large population densities of white-tailed deer that preclude forest 

regeneration on a local scale by overbrowsing. 

The frequency and severity of fires, which are still common on Long Island, 

largely determined the pattern of vegetation on the landscape. The warm season 

grasslands of the Hempstead Plains, oak-brush plains, and dwarf pine plains had 

the most frequent fires, with return intervals of about 8 years. Fires also occurred 

with great frequency but not to the same extent in pitch pine, pine-oak, and oakpine stands, with return intervals ranging from 16 to 26 years. Fires were common 

in the pine barren vegetation along the south shore, although less common in the 

forest types north of the moraines on Long Island’s north shore. Historically, 

most of the fires were believed to have resulted from Native American activities in 

managing land and hunting.

The second major factor influencing the vegetative pattern is soil characteristics: 

particularly, the amount and type of sand. The most fire-dependent vegetation 

dominates areas with higher concentrations of sand; the least fire-dependent 

vegetation dominates areas with less sand. In the 

colonial period, portions of Long Island were cleared 

for farming and other agriculture. However, the 

central pine barren area was not cleared, because 

of its sandy soils. Native Americans continued their 

traditional use of fire, and colonists also used fire to 

clear land. Development since colonial times on Long 

Island focused on clearing wildlands for agriculture 

and housing. Fire as a management tool became less 

common with increasing suburbanization, although 

wildfires continued to be a conspicuous process in 

pine barren habitats at Long Island.

Many communities on Long Island now suppress 

wildfires. However, we and other organizations 

recognize the ecological value of wildfires via 

prescribed burns. The New York State Forest 

Rangers apply that technique to state wildlife 

management lands. The Pine Barrens Commission, 

a recent multi-agency initiative formed to manage 

the pine barrens, is now coordinating wildfire 

suppression efforts and developing a prescribed fire 

program. The Nature Conservancy keeps a fire boss 

on Long Island and they have assisted the refuge 

with prescribed burns on several occasions.

Wertheim is one of the first locales on Long Island 

to have initiated a prescribed burning program. We 

maintain two to five qualified burn staff, two trucks 

outfitted with fire pumps, and a cache of hand tools 

and associated fire fighting equipment. Although 

Prescribed fires mimic the historic fires that shaped the 

terrestrial vegetation of Long Island.

R. Parris/USFWS
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3-5

we do not currently maintain a qualified Burn Boss on staff, our Zone Fire 

Management Officer in northern New Jersey fills that operational function. We 

completed our Fire Management Plan in 2001. Depending on other priorities, we 

participate in the Central Pine Barrens Wildfire Task Force and Prescribed Fire 

Subcommittee. That has allowed us to collaborate with other land management 

agencies in the use of prescribed fire and interact with the myriad local fire 

departments on Long Island responsible for wildfire suppression. Since 2000, 

we have burned approximately 40 acres of woodland, 11 acres of grassland, and 

35 acres of Phragmites marsh with prescribed fire. With the exception of a 7-acre 

grassland burn at Conscience Point and a 2-acre grassland burn at Sayville, all the 

remaining burns occurred at Wertheim. In addition to burns at refuges, we have 

participated in a roughly equal number of burns on state, Suffolk County, and TNC 

properties.

Climate change currently threatens vital coastal marshes, where salt marsh 

accretion processes may not always keep pace with projected increases in sea level 

rise. This can lead to marshes becoming too flooded resulting in extensive plant 

mortality, peat erosion and loss of elevation. If erosion is significant the marsh 

may be converted to open water or mudflat. In other instances where salt marshes 

accrete at the same pace as sea level rise but where there are not adjacent low 

lying upland areas marshes may be “squeezed out” between rising sea levels (loss 

due to flooding) and an inability of marsh vegetation to “jump” steep elevation 

grades, particularly those posed by seawalls or other shoreline structures. A recent 

phenomenon, sudden wetland dieback, also is causing a decrease in salt marsh 

vegetation. The extent, cause and duration of this problem remain unknown. 

In addition to salt marshes, the refuge complex supports other coastal habitats 

including beach, intertidal mudflats, marine open water, tidal river, maritime 

shrubland, and upland forests. These habitats provide critical buffers to the marsh 

as well as critical habitat to many aquatic and upland species of conservation 

concern.

Biological 

Environment

Habitat Types

 Long Island’s vegetation has been categorized into a variety of schemes. 

According to Bailey (1995), all of the refuges comprising the Complex are located 

in the eastern broadleaf forest province. Barbour and Billings (1988) place Long 

Island in their ecological coastal grouping, which includes the northernmost 

portion of the southeastern coastal plain. The authors specifically refer to the 

vegetation of Long Island as the “Northern Pine Barrens.” On a more local scale, 

Olsvig et al. (1979) and Villani (1997) have provided a classification scheme of Long 

Island’s terrestrial vegetation types focusing on pine barren types. The Service 

has placed the refuges of the Complex in two delineated ecosystems: the Hudson 

River/New York Bight Ecosystem and the Connecticut River/Long Island Sound 

Ecosystem. The habitat types described below are found on the Complex. Please 

refer to the vegetation cover maps for each refuge on the following pages and table 

3.1 for details.

Biological Environment
Chapter 3

3-6 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

The following sections describe some of the major terrestrial, wetland, and aquatic 

habitats associated with the Complex. See table 3.1 for gross cover types of the 

Complex.

Terrestrial Habitats (based on Reschke 1990)

Conifer plantations can be found at Wertheim and Seatuck refuges. Eastern white 

pine and Norway spruce dominate. Woody understories and field layers are sparse. 

Grasslands are present at six of the nine refuges, and include both warm and cool 

season species. Warm season grasslands are considered the native grasslands of 

Long Island, and are dominated by little bluestem, switch grass, Indian grass, 

broomsedge, and big bluestem. The federal-listed endangered plant sandplain 

gerardia is associated with certain warm season grasslands. Warm season 

grasslands are fire-adapted, and occur on refuges in both forest openings and on 

grasslands greater than 10 acres. Most of the refuges with grasslands contain 

cool season species, including such non-native grasses as meadow grass, orchard 

grass, timothy, fescue, and crab grass. Two native cool season grasses that occur in 

refuges are beach grass, which occurs on primary and secondary dunes, and sweet 

vernal grass, which occurs on forest edges and as a component of forest meadows.

Improved grounds occur at Wertheim, Seatuck, Morton, and Target Rock, which 

have public use facilities or structures. Improved grounds tend to lie adjacent to 

roadways, buildings and parking lots. The grounds are dominated by cool season 

grasses, principally bluegrass, crab grass, and fescue species. Improved grounds 

also possess some shade trees and ornamental shrubs. We mow those grounds 

about every two weeks in the growing season. 

Maritime oak forests have a composition similar to oak/beech forests. This type 

was described by the New York Natural Heritage Program, using the forest stands 

of Morton as the type example. The stands are located on a narrow peninsula 

surrounded by bays. The principal difference between this forest type and the 

preceding type is the greater humidity and wind effects associated with the 

maritime oak forest.

Mixed-oak forests, the most common forest type on the Complex by acreage, occur 

only on the southern outwash plain of Long Island, where Wertheim and Seatuck 

are located. The dominant overstory vegetation includes white oak, red oak, black 

oak, scarlet oak, and pignut hickory. Pitch pine may be present, but generally 

consists of less than 10 percent of the overstory. The woody understory is robust, 

ranges in height from 1 foot to 6 feet, and is dominated by black huckleberry, 

lowbush blueberry, briar, and highbush blueberry. The field layer is sparse, and the 

litter layer is robust. In areas of past gypsy moth infestations, where oak mortality 

has occurred, the stands are open-canopied and the understory is fuller and more 

robust. 

Oak/beech forests grow at Target Rock, Oyster Bay, and Conscience Point. That 

type is similar to mixed oak, except it grows on sites north of the moraine where 

the soil consists of less sand, is more fertile, and has increased water-holding 

capacity. Tree growth and stand quality are more robust than in the mixed-oak 

stands. Common overstory trees in this type include red oak, black oak, white 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3-7

oak, American beech, and tulip tree. The woody understory varies from sparse to 

robust, and includes mountain laurel, maple-leaved viburnum, lowbush blueberry, 

briar, and black huckleberry. Field layers tend to be sparse. 

Oak/pitch pine forests grow at both Wertheim and Seatuck. The overstory 

vegetation is similar to the mixed oak type, except that the pitch pine component 

composes between 10 percent and 70 percent of the overstory. The woody 

understory, field layer, and leaf litter layer are similar to the mixed oak type. The 

oak-pitch pine type, like the mixed oak type, occurs as both closed canopied and 

open canopied stands due to past oak mortality by gypsy moth.

Pioneer hardwood forests are typically the first woody vegetation in succession 

at many of the refuges. Dominant overstory vegetation includes black cherry, 

sassafras, and black locust. Woody understories are robust and include raspberry/

dewberry, briar, black huckleberry, and lowbush blueberry. 

Pitch pine forests grow at Wertheim and Sayville, where pitch pine makes up 70 

percent of the tree species. Other overstory species include white oak, red oak, and 

black oak. Woody understory species include black huckleberry, lowbush blueberry, 

and briar. In a closed canopy stand, the woody understory is sparse, but in an 

open canopy stand, it is robust. Fuels include the robust leaf litter and the woody 

understory. Open canopied pitch pine stands present a fire danger because of their 

high fuel loading and fuel ladders.

Red cedar forests are dominated by red cedar, with few other species in the 

overstory. This category only includes red cedar past the sapling stage when the 

canopy is starting to close. The woody understory and field layers are sparse. 

Red maple/tupelo forests are dominated by an overstory of red maple and 

tupelo. A robust woody understory consists of spicebush, arrowwood, and sweet 

pepperbush. This forest type frequently has a prevalent field layer, frequently 

including tussock sedge. This forest type grows on moist sites, particularly along 

stream corridors, although some stands grow at more mesic sites.

Unvegetated spoil consists of dredged aquatic 

sediment placed on either a wetland or terrestrial 

site. Those materials generally result from the 

dredging of boat channels. The substrate consists of 

large particles of sand. Due to the substrate’s poor 

ability to hold nutrients and moisture, vegetation 

is generally lacking, with the exception of sporadic 

patches of low-growing false heather. This cover 

type occurs at Seatuck. 

Upland shrub habitats can be found at most of the 

refuges, and are dominated by arrowwood, Asiatic 

bittersweet, honeysuckle, scrub oak, dogwood, and 

other woody species. Upland shrub areas grow along 

wetland boundaries, forest edges, on impoverished 

soils, and in areas where high densities of whiteDredge site at Seatuck

Suffolk County Department of Public Works

Biological Environment
Chapter 3

3-8 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 3

3-10 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Table 3.1. Gross Cover Types of the Complex

Acres Within Each Refuge Habitat 

Types

Percent 

of Total 

Total 

Acres 

Amagansett 

Conscience 

Point

Lido

Beach Morton 

Oyster 

Bay Sayville Seatuck 

Target 

Rock Wertheim 

Unvegetated Habitats; 3496.4 acres (55.1% of land base) 

Open Water 53.7 3405.6 0.2 3.7 2947.7 4.0 450.0 

Strand 1.3 85.5 5.5 0.1 37.4 31.0 1.0 7.7 2.8 

Unvegetated 

Spoil 5.3 0.1 5.3 

Herbaceous Habitats; 1200.9 acres (18.8% of land base) 

Grassland 2.3 144.9 26.7 26.0 22.4 30.0 1.3 38.5 

Improved 

Grounds 0.1 9.2 1.9 2.0 1.5 3.8 

High Marsh 7.1 452.1 6.0 12.0 5.5 65.0 54.0 0.4 309.2 

Intertidal 

Marsh 3.8 244.0 6.0 7.0 15.0 162.0 12.0 1.0 41.0 

Robust 

Emergent 

Marsh 

5.5 350.7 0.2 0.3 16.0 334.2 

Shrub Dominated Habitats; 120.1 acres (1.9% of land base) 

Upland 

Shrub 1.2 78.1 3.6 2 3.0 28.0 3.0 12.3 3.1 26.1 

Shrub

Swamp 0.7 42.0 1.0 38.0 

Forest Dominated Habitats; 1524.5 acres (24.2% of land base) 

Conifer

Plantations 0.1 6.0 5.0 1.0 

Maritime 

Oak 0.6 39.3 39.3 

Mixed Oak 11.5 730.3 35.0 695.3 

Oak/Beech 1.2 77.5 15.7 2.0 59.8 

Oak/Pitch 

Pine 3.3 207.2 4.0 203.2 

Pioneer 

Hardwood 1.1 71.8 4.0 18.7 12.4 36.7 

Pitch Pine 2.9 186.8 18.0 168.8 

Red Cedar 0.4 24.1 7.5 0.2 16.4 

Red Maple/ 

Tupelo 2.9 181.5 7.5 9.0 165.0 

tailed deer cause a lack of forest regeneration. Shrub heights in these habitats 

range from 4 feet to 12 feet. 

Wetland Habitats

High marshes occur at all refuges except Sayville and Amagansett. High marsh is 

dominated by salt hay, short-growth-form cordgrass, salt grass, black grass, and 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3-9

salt marsh bulrush. High marsh lies between the intertidal marsh and terrestrial 

lands. High marsh is flooded by high rainfall, spring tides, or above-normal high 

tides.

Intertidal marshes likewise are found at all refuges except Sayville and 

Amagansett. The tide floods the intertidal marsh daily, and the tall-growth form of 

smooth cordgrass dominates the vegetation.

Robust emergent marshes occur at Wertheim, Amagansett, Oyster Bay, and 

Seatuck. The vegetation is dominated by invasive Phragmites, cattails, brackish 

cordgrass, or bulrush, at heights ranging from 3 feet to 12 feet. 

Shrub swamps can be found at Wertheim and Target Rock. Arrowwood, swamp 

loosestrife, willow, and alder dominate. Shrub swamps typically lie on the edges of 

marshes and streams. Fuels include leaf litter, herbaceous material, and the woody 

overstory. Shrub height ranges from 3 feet to 10 feet.

Aquatic Habitats

The Complex has both tidal and nontidal surface waters. Nontidal waters include 

ponds, streams, and swamps. Tidal waters include bays, ponds, salt marshes, 

brackish marshes, freshwater marshes and streams. The tide floods most of the 

intertidal wetlands daily; the greatest inundation occurs at the new and full moons. 

The tide also floods the high salt marshes periodically, but at longer intervals than 

the intertidal marshes. Salt marshes are most prominent at Wertheim, Seatuck, 

and Lido Beach; subtidal habitats dominate Oyster Bay.

Open water habitats consist of subtidal, tidal, and nontidal waters. The bulk of 

subtidal and tidal waters occurs at Oyster Bay and Wertheim. That acreage also 

includes freshwater and brackish ponds at Morton, Conscience Point, Seatuck, and 

Target Rock. Common vegetative species in those open water areas include eel 

grass, green fleece, sea lettuce, and waterweed. 

Strand or beach habitat occurs at all refuges except 

Sayville and Lido Beach. This habitat borders tidal 

waters, and typically consists of coarse, sedimentlike sand or small stones. Strand habitat extends 

from the water’s edge to upland vegetation, typically 

beach grass, on the primary dune. Vegetation 

both alive and dead is generally lacking in strand 

habitats. 

Fish and Wildlife

The refuges of the Complex provide significant, even critical amounts of habitat 

for the majority of wildlife species known to occur on Long Island. Nearly 500 

vertebrate species and approximately 500 species of vascular plants have been 

documented at the Complex. Many invertebrate species also live on the Complex, 

including several species of commercial shellfish. The nine refuges are widely 

spread, and encompass most of the vegetation types on Long Island, which inturn provide habitat for a variety of wildlife ranging from forest interior nesting 

Neotropical migrant birds to marine mammals. The coastal location of the refuges 

Biological Environment

Tidal wetland

© T. Kman
Chapter 3

3-10 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

also makes them part of a major migration corridor for a variety of birds, including 

waterfowl, waterbirds, raptors, and songbirds. Appendix A lists birds, mammals, 

reptiles, amphibians, fish, and butterflies that can be found at the Complex.

Birds

Avian species make up the largest single class of vertebrates at the Complex. Close 

to 300 species have been documented on its refuges. Approximately 70 percent of 

the waterfowl wintering in New York State spend the months of October through 

April on Long Island. Up to 25,000 waterfowl have been documented on the waters 

and wetlands of the Complex. Waterbird use also is common, with peak periods for 

long-legged wading birds, terns, shorebirds and other waterbirds in the warmer 

months. The coastal location of the refuges also makes them important migratory 

habitat for many raptor species, particularly the state-listed endangered peregrine 

falcon and the state-listed threatened northern harrier. Other raptor species 

include osprey, hawks, and owls.

Songbirds are conspicuous on the refuges, and a major attraction for many of 

our visitors. That songbird community is diverse, and includes many Neotropical 

migrants.

Mammals

Thirty-three species of mammals have been documented at the refuges. Whitetailed deer, eastern cottontail, gray squirrel, red fox, eastern chipmunk, muskrat, 

and harbor seal attract visitors. Bats compose about a quarter of the mammalian 

species at the Complex.

Reptiles

Thirty-five species of reptiles and amphibians inhabit the Complex. Eastern 

box turtles and eastern hognose snakes are of particular interest because of 

their perceived current decline on Long Island, where both species were once 

considered abundant and dominant. Eastern box turtles are also a species in which 

our visiting has expressed tremendous interest. The eastern mud turtle, a statedesignated endangered species, occupies aquatic habitats at Wertheim.

Amphibians

The dominant amphibians at the Complex include red backed salamander, 

bullfrog, green frog, wood frog, Fowlers toad and spring peeper. Additional work 

is needed to survey the salamander community at the Complex, particularly mole 

salamander species.

Fish

The Complex encompasses diverse aquatic habitats ranging from marine to 

freshwater and tidal to non-tidal, as well as lentic and lotic habitats. The fish 

community reflects that diversity. Salt marshes support an interesting array 

of killifish species. Bays provide seasonal habitat for many recreationally and 

commercially important marine species. Tidal rivers and streams support both 

catadromous and anadromous species. Freshwater streams provide trout habitat, 

and ponds and impoundments support warm water fisheries. More than 100 species 

of fish inhabit the waters of the Complex.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3-11

Invertebrates

Numerous invertebrate species also inhabit the Complex. Although it lacks 

an exhaustive inventory of the invertebrate communities found at its refuges, 

appendix B lists butterfly species. Standard works like Boyd (1991), Boyd and 

Marucci (1979), and Dindal (1979) provide information on invertebrates likely to 

occur in refuge habitats, particularly in pine barrens and tidal wetlands. Shellfish 

are found on many of the refuges. Those of particular commercial and recreational 

interest include oysters, hardshell clams, scallops and blue claw crabs. The waters 

associated with Oyster Bay are estimated to produce approximately 90 percent of 

the oysters harvested in New York.

Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species

Federally designated endangered or threatened species at the Complex include 

the sandplain gerardia, piping plover, roseate tern, bald eagle, and Kemp’s ridley, 

loggerhead, hawksbill, green, and leatherback sea turtles (USFWS 1995). Statelisted endangered or threatened animal species at the Complex–not already 

federal-listed–include the golden eagle, peregrine falcon, black rail and king rail, 

black, common, and least tern; and short-eared owl, loggerhead shrike, pied-billed 

grebe, least bittern, northern harrier, upland sandpiper, sedge wren, eastern mud 

turtle, tiger salamander, northern cricket frog, Hessel’s hairstreak, and frosted 

elfin (USFWS 1995, NYSDEC 2003). 

State-listed endangered or threatened plant species at the Complex–not already 

federal-listed–include little-leaf tick trefoil, round-leaf boneset, coast flatsedge, 

bushy rockrose, velvety lespedeza, opelousa smartweed, small-flowered pearlwort, 

seabeach knotweed, swamp cottonwood, rough rush grass, marsh straw sedge, 

stargrass, slender pinweed, flax-leaf white-top, stiff tick-trefoil, northern blazing 

star, sandplain wild flax, southern yellow flax, few-flowered nutrush, spring ladiestresses, swamp sunflower, water pigmy weed, and silver aster.

The state- and federal-listed 

endangered shortnose sturgeon 

has been documented in the lower 

portion of the Hudson River, but 

no sightings at the refuges of the 

Complex have been reported.

State threatened plant 

communities, neither of which 

are protected, include maritime 

grasslands and red maple-black 

gum swamps.

See the table at the end of 

appendix A for threatened, 

endangered and species of special 

concern at the Complex. Federal- and state-threatened loggerhead sea turtles depend on subtital 

habitats.

USFWS

Biological Environment
Chapter 3

3-12 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Habitat requirements

Sandplain gerardia is part of a fire-dependent grassland community. 

Bald eagles principally use the refuges while migrating or wintering, and are 

associated with aquatic or wetland habitats and their adjacent terrestrial borders. 

Peregrine falcons also use the refuges while migrating, and forage on the rich 

waterfowl resource. Short-eared owls require broad expanses of open land with 

low vegetation, such as grasslands or low-structured open shrub lands, for hunting 

and nesting (Holt and Leasure 1993). Northern harriers make use of emergent 

wetlands and grasslands.

The piping plover and roseate tern are associated with intertidal or strand 

habitats. Common terns nest on sandy beaches, gravelly or sparsely vegetated 

shores, and both fresh water and salt water high marshes (Burger and Gochfeld 

1991, Clapp et al 1983). Least terns prefer areas clear of vegetation. They nest in 

loose colonies on coastal dunes and on sand or shell beaches just above the high 

tide line, or along major interior rivers (Hunter 1975, Blodget 1978, Carreker 1985, 

Thompson et al. 1997).

Black rails are found in high coastal marshes and wet meadows. King rails are 

found in a variety of freshwater marshes and marsh-shrub swamp habitats. Black 

terns feed and nest in large, shallow, freshwater emergent wetlands, the margins 

of lakes, some river edges, and semi-permanent ponds (Dunn and Agro 1995). 

Pied-billed grebes use “ponds, sloughs and marshes...and occasionally estuarine 

wetlands” (Gibbs and Melvin 1992); preferring human- and beaver-altered 

wetlands more than those of glacial origin (Gibbs et al. 1991). Least bitterns use 

freshwater and brackish marshes with dense, tall growths of aquatic or semiaquatic vegetation interspersed with clumps of woody vegetation and open water, 

and occasionally use salt marshes.

Loggerhead shrikes require open country with short vegetation, including riparian 

areas and open woodlands. Upland sandpipers use large open grasslands, and 

prefer to nest, feed, and court in short vegetation (Ailes 1976, Kirsch and Higgins 

1976), interspersed with taller, concealing grasses (Johnsgard 1981, White 1988, 

Carter 1992). Sedge wrens use densely vegetated sedge meadows, wet hayfields, 

the upland margins of ponds and marshes, and coastal brackish marshes (Gibbs 

and Melvin 1992).

Sea turtles depend on subtidal habitats. Eastern mud turtles hibernate in 

emergent wetlands and mature pitch pine and oak-pitch pine stands, and nest in 

warm season grasslands. Adult tiger salamanders inhabit forests, grasslands, or 

marshy areas (Petranka 1998). Northern cricket frogs use the edges of ponds and 

streams with submerged or emergent vegetation (Stebbins 1966). 

The two lepidopteran species require their host plants to survive. Hessel’s 

hairstreak requires Atlantic white cedar, which grows in swamps and stream banks 

(Vaughn and Shepherd 2005). The frosted elfin requires wild lupines, and prefers 

edge habitats near oak savannah and pine barrens with a fairly dense canopy 

(Packer 1999).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3-13

Amagansett National Wildlife Refuge

The current management of Amagansett includes providing habitat for federally 

listed threatened species such as piping plover; protecting native strand 

communities, including beach, primary and secondary dunes, and swales; and, 

emphasizing migratory birds and threatened or endangered species. Other 

management activities include controlling invasive species such as Japanese black 

pine and developing nesting structures for raptors (see map 3-1).

Terrestrial Habitats

Amagansett comprises Atlantic coastal barrier beach, primary dune habitats, a 

secondary dune/swale complex, and scrub oak vegetation. It has a unique double 

dune system, and is one of the few coastal beaches remaining undeveloped on Long 

Island. The refuge beach is a typical straight beach formed against gradually rising 

uplands. The primary dune line averages 10 to 15 feet in height, and is largely intact. 

Beach grass dominates on these dunes. Species present on the secondary dunes 

include beach grass and extensive areas of false heather. Behind the foredunes lie 

areas of poison ivy, beach plum, bayberry, and wild rose. Those areas grade into 

some small bogs that support cranberry, sedges, and various grasses. The inland 

portion of the refuge consists of scrub oak, bayberry, beach plum, wild rose, green 

briar, and red cedar. Approximately 100 acres of The Nature Conservancy holdings 

border the refuge to the west. East of the refuge lie well-developed private and 

public bathing beaches.

In the spring and summer, the secondary dunes and the swale complex of the 

refuge display an impressive array of wildflowers, grasses, and orchids (see 

table 3.2).

Wetland Habitats

Two palustrine emergent wetlands of approximately 1 acre each lie in the dune/

swale terrain. Those contain permanently standing shallow water. The dominant 

emergents there are common threesquare and rush. Common reed is scattered 

throughout those wetlands, and cranberry is sometimes found near their shallow 

fringes (Norton et al. 1984).

Fish and Wildlife

Birds

The coastal location of the refuge enhances its value to birds during migration, 

although its small size and uniform habitat limits the diversity of bird species to 26. 

Ipswich sparrows, a race of the Savannah sparrow, are known to winter there. It 

serves piping plovers and many terns as a foraging area, and piping plovers nest 

immediately west of it.

Raptors.—The refuge serves an important function for raptors that migrate along 

the coast. American kestrels, merlins, peregrine falcons, sharp-shinned hawks, and 

Cooper’s hawks have been documented at Amagansett during migration. Up to 

100 American kestrels in one hour have been observed at the peak of their autumn 

Biological Environment - Amagansett National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 3

3-14 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

passage. Snowy owls and rough-legged hawks have also been documented in the 

winter.

Waterfowl.—The use of the refuge by waterfowl is limited to adjacent offshore 

areas. In the winter months, the most common waterfowl species observed include 

white-winged scoter, surf scoter, oldsquaw, and red-breasted merganser.

Shorebirds, Gulls, Terns and Allied Species.—The marine beach and swales 

provide habitats for a variety of sandpipers, plovers, gulls, and terns. Black-bellied 

plovers and sanderlings are the shorebirds most commonly using the beach. 

Herring gull, great black-backed gull, and ring-billed gull are common year-round 

at Amagansett, and northern gannets can be frequently observed from the refuge 

beach in winter. 

Biological Environment – Amaganasett National Wildlife Refuge

Draft CCP/EA - June 2006 3-17

Raptors ���������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������������������������������������

Waterfowl ������������������������������������������������������������������ �������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������

Table 3.2. Vegetation Observed at Amagansett 

beach pea (Lathyrus maritimus/japonicus) 

blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium montanum) 

butter and eggs (Linaria vulgaris) 

calopogon (Calopogon sp.)

cinquefoil (Potentilla sp.) 

common evening primrose (Oenothera biennis) 

common highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum) 

deptford pink (Dianthus deltoides) 

false heather (Hudsonia tomentosa) 

goldenrod (Solidago sp.) 

grass pink orchid (Calopogon pulchellus) 

horseweed (Erigeron canadensis) 

hyssop-leaved thoroughwort (Eupatorium rotundifolium) 

indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans) 

large cranberry (Vaccinium. macrocarpon) 

marsh straw sedge (Carex hormathodes) 

mountain sandwort (Arenaria groenlandica) 

ox-eye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum) 

path rush (Juncus tenuis) 

peppergrass (Lepidium sp.)

poor-man’s pepper (Lepidium virginicum) 

red fescue (Festuca rubra) 

rose (Rosa sp.) 

rose pogonia (Pogonia ophioglossoides)

round-leaved thoroughwort (Eupatorium hyssopifolium) 

sickle-leaved golden aster (Chrysopsis falcata) 

silver rod (Solidago bicolor) 

slender fragrant goldenrod (Solidago tenuifolia) 

snake mouth orchid (Pogonia ophioglossoides) 

tall wormwood (Artemisia caudata) 

toadflax (Linaria vulgaris) 

wild carrot (Daucus carota) 

wild indigo (Baptisia tinctoria) 

wood/common strawberry (Fragaria vesca) 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3-15

Biological Environment - Amagansett National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 3

3-16 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Reptiles and Amphibians

Complex staff have observed several eastern hognose snakes at Amagansett. The 

snake, once an abundant secondary dune species on Long Island beaches, has been 

steadily declining in numbers. Eastern spadefoot toads also use the refuge.

Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species

The federal-listed endangered roseate tern uses the beach at Amagansett as a 

resting area, and forages in its offshore waters. Like the roseate tern, the statelisted endangered least tern also uses the beach as a resting area. Piping plovers, 

a federal-listed threatened species, have also been observed annually foraging and 

loafing there, and have recently nested on the refuge. New York’s Natural Heritage 

program lists records of the state-listed endangered round-leaf boneset and 

threatened little-leaf tick-trefoil at Amagansett.

Piping plovers are a federal-listed threatened and state-listed endangered species.

© Richard Kuzminski
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3-17

Conscience Point National Wildlife Refuge 

Conscience Point consists of 60 acres of salt marsh, deciduous forest, shrub 

habitats, kettle holes, and grassland. About one-third of the refuge is wetland, 

primarily salt marsh; the other two-thirds are upland habitats (see map 3-2).

Terrestrial Habitats

The refuge preserves and maintains one of the best examples of maritime 

grassland remaining on Long Island. The grassland is dominated by little 

bluestem, with lesser amounts of Indian grass, poverty grass, and prickly pear 

cactus. The tidal wetlands provide habitat important for black ducks and a host of 

other waterbirds. Management activities are geared toward maintaining native 

grassland, controlling invasive species, and protecting habitat.

Maritime grasslands are a globally rare plant community found on outwash plains 

near oceans or bays. Fewer than 100 maritime grasslands are found worldwide 

(Reschke 1990). Since 1989, the State-listed coast flatsedge and bushy rockrose 

have been recorded at the refuge. Historically, several other listed plants 

associated with maritime grasslands were known there. The rarity of the maritime 

grassland habitat type on Long Island is due partly to the rapidity which the 

vegetation succeeds into maritime shrubland and the absence of disturbance, e.g. 

fire, to reduce the spread of woody vegetation. 

Wetlands Habitats

Conscience Point is part of a unique wetland network: the Sebonac Creek/West 

Neck/Scallop Pond System or, in local vernacular, the Cow Neck Complex. That 

system encompasses about 300 acres of open water, salt marsh, irregularly exposed 

tidal flats, and aquatic beds (Norton et al. 1984). The Cow Neck Complex includes 

large, privately owned wetlands and wetlands owned by The Nature Conservancy. 

The extensive salt and brackish tidal marshes include a number of tidal creeks, 

ponds and coves. The marshes characteristically comprise low and high marsh 

areas dominated by smooth cordgrass and saltmeadow cordgrass, respectively, 

with various admixtures of glasswort, spikegrass, black grass, and sea lavender, 

among others. Their upland shrubby edges often are dominated by groundselbush, marsh elder and bayberry, grading into upland forest of red maple and white 

oak.

Fish and Wildlife

More than 150 species of birds and 20 species of mammals have been documented 

at Conscience Point. The refuge supports only a limited number of breeding bird 

species, largely due to its small size and minimal forest cover, but bird usage is 

high among grassland, shrub, forest edge, and salt marsh-dependent species. The 

refuge salt marsh provides a habitat for a variety of water birds, and provides 

winter habitat important for black ducks.

Biological Environment - Conscience Point National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 3

3-18 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Black Locust SuccessionalForest (Robinia pseudoacaciaForest)North Atlantic High Salt MarshSpartina patens - Distichlisspicata - (Juncus gerardii)Herbaceous Vegetation

Northeastern Dry Oak - HickoryForest Quercus (alba, rubra,velutina) / Cornus florida /Viburnum acerifolium Forest

Old-field Red-cedar ForestJuniperus virginiana ForestPhragmites Upland GrasslandPhragmites australis TemperateUpland Herbaceous VegetationReed-grass Marsh PhragmitesaustralisTidal HerbaceousVegetation

Salt Shrub Baccharis halimifolia -Iva frutescens / Spartina patensShrublandSandplain Grassland Morellapensylvanica / Schizachyriumittorale - Danthonia spicataShrub Herbaceous VegetationSuccessional Maritime Forest Prunusserotina - Sassafras albidum -Amelanchier canadensis /Smilax rotundifolia Shrubland

Produced by Long Island NWR, Shirley, New YorkBase Map: USGS 2001 Digital Orthophotography Vegetation Data: USFWS 1994 NVCS mappingRefuge boundary: USFWS, Region 5, Div. of Realty 2004 Datum and projection: NAD 1983, UTM Zone 18, MetersMap Date: 3/2006

0 0.1 0.2

Miles

0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Kilometers

1:6,141

C

o

n

s

cie

n

c

e

P

oint N

atio

n

al Wildlife

R

efu

g

e

U.S. Fish &

Wildlife

S

ervic

e

Suffolk County, New

York

Vegetatio

n

C

o

ver M

a

p

Vegetation Cover

M

a

p

3-2

WaterGrass Path

Refuge Boundary (60 Acres)
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3-19

Birds

Bobwhite quail and ring-necked pheasants are also observed on Conscience Point, 

which has one of the highest densities of quail in the Complex.

Raptors.—Osprey and several hawk and owl species also have been observed at 

Conscience Point.

Waterfowl.—The Cow Neck Complex is known for its high concentration of black 

ducks. Waterfowl numbers are highest in the colder months, and decline in the 

warmer months. Black ducks are by far the predominant waterfowl species using 

the refuge. The area is considered to be regionally significant for black ducks, 

both as breeding and wintering habitat; wintering black duck densities there are 

among the highest for Long Island. Because of those factors, the Peconic Estuary 

Program has tentatively identified the Cow Neck Complex as significant habitat 

for black duck. Other common waterfowl species include bufflehead, Canada goose, 

red-breasted merganser, and mallard.

Shorebirds, Gulls, Terns and Allied Species.—In the winter, double-crested 

cormorants and horned grebe are the waterbird species most commonly 

encountered on the refuge. Common long-legged waders at the refuge include 

great egret, snowy egret, and great blue heron.

Gulls and terns are frequently observed at the refuge. Herring and great blackbacked gulls are the most common gull species, and least terns are the most 

abundant terns. Shorebirds commonly encountered include greater and lesser 

yellowlegs, American woodcocks, short-billed dowitchers, and willets.

Other Migratory Birds.—Neotropical birds are a common component of the 

wildlife community, especially prairie, yellow, yellowthroat, and blue-winged 

warblers. Forty species of Neotropical migrants have been documented on the 

refuge, including a male rose-breasted grosbeak, an uncommon species during the 

breeding season on Long Island.

Mammals

The most common species in order of abundance are white-tailed deer, gray 

squirrel, eastern cottontail, and red fox. 

Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species

Least and common terns, State-designated endangered and threatened species, 

respectively, are frequently observed foraging at the refuge aquatic habitats. Their 

numbers peak in May.

Ospreys, a New York State species of concern, are commonly observed from March 

through August roosting in trees and foraging in aquatic habitats on the refuge. 

Several nesting platforms exist on the refuge for breeding ospreys. Northern 

harriers, a State-listed threatened species, are observed occasionally foraging in 

the refuge grasslands and marshes.

Biological Environment - Conscience Point National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 3

3-20 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Elizabeth A. Morton National Wildlife Refuge

Morton National Wildlife Refuge, a 187-acre peninsula and its associated lands and 

waters, is located in Sag Harbor on the north shore of Long Island’s south fork, 

Southampton Township. The peninsula, known by the local residents as Jessup’s 

Neck, separates Little Peconic Bay from Noyack Bay (see maps 3-3 and 3-4).

Terrestrial Habitats

The position of those bays at Jessup’s Neck makes Morton an extremely valuable 

area for a variety of waterbirds. The north-south axis of the peninsula between 

Long Island’s two forks also makes the refuge an important migration corridor 

for a variety of terrestrial birds. The peninsula consists of 3 miles of undeveloped 

shoreline; one of the few shorelines without armoring or development that remain 

in the area. The tip of the Neck has steep, heavily eroded bluffs approaching 

50 feet. Its habitats are varied, and include sand beach, salt marsh, freshwater 

marsh, brackish and freshwater ponds, lagoons, tidal flats, old fields and oak and 

cedar forests.

Upland areas at the refuge consist of brush, old fields and forest stands composed 

of mixed oak, red maple, pioneer and red cedar types. The dominant upland 

cover type is oak forest, classified by the New York State Heritage Program as 

a maritime oak forest, a vegetation type represented by only a few areas in the 

state. Other common upland habitats on the refuge include upland shrubs, which 

are dominated by honeysuckle and bayberry, grasslands, which are dominated by 

beach grass, and hardwoods, which are dominated by black cherry.

Refuge beaches are narrow, and consist of either sand or small stones in distinct 

zones. Shells are extremely abundant. Farther inland, beach grass and seaside 

goldenrod are abundant.

On the peninsula, the sand and stone beach slopes abruptly upward into heavily 

eroded sandy bluffs. The deciduous forest atop the peninsula has an open canopy 

of 30-foot to 40-foot oaks. Shrub growth is extremely dense and mixed, with a 

composition that includes bayberry, grape, and some sassafras. The more southern 

of the two patches of forest has trails, whereas the northern patch is nearly 

impenetrable. Two infrequently flooded brackish ponds lie between them. Floating 

and submerged algal growth is seldom flushed out and is, therefore, very thick. 

Shorebirds feed extensively there during fall migration. Ospreys are known to nest 

in dead cedar trees nearby.

The southern portion of the peninsula contains open water contiguous with Noyack 

Bay. These sheltered shorelines contain a fringe of smooth cordgrass grading into 

a high marsh zone of variable width. Several tidal flats also lie in the vicinity, some 

partially vegetated. Channel dredging for navigation is evident.

The inland portion of the refuge is mostly upland deciduous forest with a variety 

of other scattered cover types. Several eastern red cedar stands are also present. 

The main forest has mixed deciduous composition more diverse than typical Long 

Island oak-dominated woodlands. Many of these vegetation types, especially those 

adjacent to public-use areas, contain abundant invasive exotic plants such as garlic 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3-21

mustard, Asiatic bittersweet, Japanese honeysuckle, and Japanese barberry. 

Pothole-type depressions and small ponds are located on the peninsula and 

mainland.

Wetland Habitats

The dominant aquatic/wetland cover type at Morton is a beach habitat along the 

entire Jessup’s Neck peninsula. The other two dominant wetland cover types are 

intertidal marsh and high marsh. Stands of great reed occupy only a small portion 

of the refuge, and are not considered as great a problem as on other Long Island 

refuges.

The effects of storms and the buildup of sediment regularly change the refuge 

shoreline. The apex of the Jessup’s Neck peninsula, which consists of a sand and 

gravel bar, continues to expand toward Long Island’s north fork. That bar is a 

favorite loafing spot for gulls, terns, shorebirds and cormorants.

A freshwater pond, prime habitat for mallards, wood ducks, wading birds, painted 

turtles and frogs, is located in the upland portion of the refuge. We can manipulate 

its water levels somewhat with 

a water control structure.

Fish and Wildlife

Birds 

The refuge provides habitat 

for close to 300 species of 

birds. The refuge beach and 

its adjacent waters serve 

as habitat important for 

piping plovers, roseate terns, 

common terns, ospreys, and 

shorebirds. Sea duck species 

and American black ducks 

are common in winter. We 

direct our management at 

protecting federally listed 

beach-nesting species and 

migratory birds. Marine 

turtles, seals, and diverse fish 

species also use those waters.

The most common birds 

observed on or near the 

refuge include white-winged 

scoter, long-tailed duck, 

common goldeneye, black 

duck, and gulls. Other 

bird species of interest, 

because of a scarcity of 

Black ducks use the lagoon and brackish pond at the 

refuge.

© Mark Wilson

Biological Environment - Elizabeth A. Morton National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 3

3-22 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3-23

1:4,200

0 0.1 0.2

Miles

0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Kilometers

Produced by Long Island NWR Complex, Shirley, New York

Base Map: USGS 2001 Digital Orthophotography

Vegetation Data: USFWS 1994 NVCS mapping

Refuge boundary: USFWS, Region 5, Div. of Realty 2004

Datum and projection: NAD 1983, UTM Zone 18, Meters

Map Date: 3/2006

Elizabeth A. Morton National Wildlife Refuge Facilities and Trails Map

Suffolk County, New York

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Map 3-4

Open Field

Access Road

Nature Trails

Refuge Boundary

(187 Acres)

Pond

Fee Station

Information Kiosk

Parking Lot

Platform

Refuge Housing

Refuge Office

Restroom

Biological Environment - Elizabeth A. Morton National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 3

3-24 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

sightings in the area, are fox sparrow, sharp-shinned hawk, hermit 

thrush, horned lark, snow bunting, and swamp sparrow.

Raptors.—Sightings of sharp-shinned hawks, merlins, kestrels, and northern 

harriers are common at Morton as they move up and down the peninsula. 

Resident raptor species include great horned owl, red-tailed hawk, and osprey. 

Screech owls roost in the wood duck nest boxes on the freshwater pond and are 

easily viewed by the public.

Waterfowl.—The use of Morton and adjoining waters by waterfowl is highest 

in the winter months. Sea ducks, particularly white-winged scoter and common 

goldeneye, dominate. The tip of the Jessup’s Neck peninsula receives the greatest 

use. Long-tailed ducks are found somewhat uniformly around the peninsula, and 

black ducks use the lagoon and brackish pond.

Shorebirds, Gulls, Terns and Allied Species.—Double-crested cormorants are 

observed year-round at the refuge, but numbers peak in spring and autumn. They 

feed in the bays adjacent to the refuge and loaf on the Jessup’s Neck peninsula 

and adjacent pilings. Great cormorants appear sporadically, chiefly in winter. 

The refuge hosts common loons and horned grebes from September or October 

through May; however, numbers usually peak in November and December. Nearly 

100 individuals of each species have been documented. Snowy egrets, great blue 

herons, great egrets, and green-backed herons also are common at Morton, usually 

on the lagoon and ponds.

Fourteen species of shorebirds and plovers have been observed at the refuge. 

Ruddy turnstones, black-bellied plovers, willets, and greater yellowlegs are the 

most common in the warmer months. Sanderlings are sighted on the beach in 

every month of the year, although they are more common in autumn and winter. 

American oystercatchers and whimbrels, uncommon to the Peconic Bay area, 

occasionally have been observed.

Gulls are conspicuous at the refuge. Their numbers are lowest in summer and 

higher the rest of the year. Approximately 200 gulls routinely loaf on the beach. 

About half of those are herring gulls, and half are great black-backed gulls. Tern 

species such as royal, Forster’s, and arctic terns are also observed at Morton in 

late summer and early autumn.

Other Migratory Birds.—Bank swallows nest on the western bluffs of Jessup’s 

Neck. More than 100 burrows have been counted at the colony, estimated at 

40 pairs. Volunteers monitor the use of songbird nest boxes on the refuge in the 

spring and summer. Tree swallows and house wrens are the most common species 

using the boxes. 

Forty-six songbird species have been observed on the refuge. The most common 

include gray catbird, common yellowthroat, mourning dove, yellow warbler, and 

robin. Forest interior species such as ovenbird, redstart, red-eyed vireo, wood 

peewee, and wood thrush have been detected using its relatively small acreage of 

mature forest.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3-25

Mammals 

The most commonly sighted mammals at Morton include white-tailed deer, eastern 

chipmunk, eastern cottontail, gray squirrel, and red fox.

Marine Mammals.—Seasonal sightings of harbor seals are common at Morton, 

either hauling out on the beach or swimming near inshore areas in March, 

November and December. Seal sightings on Long Island are continuing to 

increase. 

Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species

Morton also provides habitat for several state- and federal-listed endangered or 

threatened species, including piping plovers, peregrine falcons, roseate, common, 

and least terns, Kemp’s Ridley turtles and loggerhead sea turtles.

Rare wildlife species historically have used the Jessup’s Neck portion of the 

refuge. Although we close most of that peninsula to the public for the late spring to 

midsummer breeding season, the public can observe all of those species from the 

part of the beach that remains open.

Piping plovers, federal-listed as threatened, arrive at Morton between mid-March 

and early April. Once a full clutch of eggs has been laid, the refuge erects an 

exclosure around the nest. Volunteers monitor hatching and fledging rates. The 

heaviest use of the refuge by plovers occurs in July: not only nesting adults and 

their young, but also adults and fledglings from other areas forage and loaf there. A 

maximum of 19 piping plovers has been documented in a single day.

The osprey, a state-listed species of concern, is a highly visible raptor at Morton. 

One to four pairs have nested on the refuge for the last three decades, and have 

successfully fledged young each year.

Terns are highly visible species at the refuge in late spring and early summer. The 

most common species include two state-designated threatened species, the common 

tern and the least tern, and a federal-listed endangered species, the roseate 

tern. The peninsula at Morton is a favorite loafing site, and the surrounding bays 

provide excellent foraging habitat for all tern species at that time of year. For the 

first time in many years, a least tern colony successfully fledged approximately 30 

chicks in 2003, and has bred there in subsequent years. The refuge also serves as a 

local staging area for many terns before the breeding season.

Biological Environment - Elizabeth A. Morton National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 3

3-26 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Lido Beach Wildlife Management Area

Lido Beach is located on the bay side of Long Beach, on a barrier island west of 

Jones Inlet in Nassau County. Like the rest of Hempstead Bay, it lies in the 

vicinity of dense residential and commercial development (see map 3-5).

Terrestrial Habitats

Lido Beach consists of 22 acres of salt marsh and shrub thickets. Dense stands of 

great reed and a mixture of upland shrubs and grasses dominate the marsh/upland 

edge. The shrub thickets of Lido Beach consist of red mulberry, groundsel bush, 

bayberry, and great reed. The thickets provide roosting and nesting habitat for 

various long-legged wading birds, particularly black-crowned night-herons.

An abandoned Nike missile pad lies next to the management area. The rectangular, 

flat-topped, 4.6 acre hill overlooking the marsh is undergoing succession much in 

the manner of an abandoned parking lot. Common species are ragweed, goldenrod, 

blackberries, and poison ivy along the edges of the pad.

Wetland Habitats

The marsh at Lido Beach is a typical mixture of salt hay and salt grass; some 

black grass, glassworts, and smooth cordgrass also are present. Approximately 

45 percent of Lido Beach is ditched high salt marsh. That ditching is deep, and 

well-flushed by daily tides. Two mudflats on the marsh are being pioneered by 

glasswort species. The mud flats provide an excellent foraging area for a variety of 

shorebirds.

Aquatic Habitats

Lido Beach is part of the Hempstead estuary, which is noted for its impressive 

concentrations of waterfowl, long-legged waders, terns, and shorebirds. 

Hempstead Bay is one of the largest undeveloped coastal wetland ecosystems in 

New York. Although small in size and forming only a modest portion of the Bay, 

Lido Beach provides important habitat for wetland-dependent wildlife. 

Fish and Wildlife

The Wildlife Management Area consists primarily of tidal wetland. The diversity 

of shorebirds and wading bird is high, as is the use by waterfowl, particularly black 

ducks and Atlantic brant in winter. The area supports nesting clapper rails, blackcrowned night-herons and osprey, as well as numerous songbirds such as sharptailed sparrows. Its location on a barrier island makes it an excellent habitat for 

migrating songbirds and raptors.

Birds

Raptors.—Northern harriers, sharp-shinned hawks, and ospreys are commonly 

observed at Lido Beach. 

Waterfowl.—Waterfowl sightings are numerous and diverse. The species most 

commonly observed are black ducks, mallards, Atlantic brants, Canada geese, 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3-27

Lid

o

B

e

a

c

h

Wildlife

M

a

n

a

g

e

m

e

nt Are

a

U.S. Fis

h

&

Wildlife

S

ervic

e

Nassau County, New

York

Vegetatio

n

C

o

ver M

a

p

M

a

p

3-5

1:5,083

Produced by Long Island NWR Complex, Shirley, New YorkBase Map: USGS 2001 Digital Orthophotography Vegetation Data: USFWS 1994 NVCS mappingRefuge boundary: USFWS, Region 5, Div. of Realty 2004Datum and projection: NAD 1983, UTM Zone 18, MetersMap Date: 3/2006

0 0.1 0.2

Miles

0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Kilometers

R

efu

g

e

B

o

u

n

d

ary (2

2

A

cre

s)

Ve

g

etatio

n

C

o

v

er

BridgeWaterNorth Atlantic High Salt MarshSpartina patens - Distichlisspicata - (Juncus gerardii)Herbaceous VegetationNorthern Tall Maritime ShrublandA

melanchier canadensis -

Viburnum sp

p. - Morella

pensylvanica ShrublandReed-grass Marsh Phrag

mites

australis Tidal HerbaceousVegetation

Biological Environment - Lido Beach Wildlife Management Area
Chapter 3

3-28 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

and long-tailed ducks (oldsquaws). In January, the numbers of Atlantic brants and 

black ducks peak at 2,000 and 75.

Shorebirds, Gulls, Terns and Allied Species.—Eight species of herons, egrets 

and ibises have been observed at Lido Beach. Other marsh and waterbird species 

observed include double-crested cormorant, great cormorant, clapper rail, and 

belted kingfisher.

The Hempstead Harbor is known for its concentrations of shorebirds during 

migration. Plovers and sandpipers are commonly observed at Lido Beach. 

Occasionally, such shorebird species as whimbrels, marbled godwits, and pectoral 

sandpipers may be observed in the management area. Willets nest there in early 

summer, and glossy ibis have been sighted roosting on the piles of dredge spoil.

Gulls are commonly observed at Lido Beach. Sightings of Bonaparte’s gulls are 

accidentals in the area. Common, least, and royal terns are usually observed from 

April through July.

Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species

Least terns, a state-listed threatened species, are observed at Lido Beach from 

May through July. Ospreys, a state-designated species of concern, are observed 

from February through August. Northern harriers, a state-listed threatened 

species, are present from December through February.

Ospreys are a New York State species of concern that are present at the refuge from 

February through August.

© Janet C. Zinn
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3-29

Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge

Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge is located on the north shore of Long Island 

in eastern Nassau County in the Town of Oyster Bay. It is 20 miles east of New 

York City and 5 miles west of Target Rock. The major refuge holdings are in 

Oyster Bay Harbor and the western portion of Cold Spring Harbor. The waters 

of Oyster Bay surround Sagamore Hill National Historic Site, home of Theodore 

Roosevelt, the founder of the first national wildlife refuge. Please note that “Oyster 

Bay” in this document refers to Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge. See maps 3-6 

and 3-7.

Wetland Habitats

The refuge includes more than 3,000 acres of bay bottom and surface waters up 

to the mean high tide line, in addition to the channels and marshes of Frost, Oak 

Neck, and Mill Neck creeks. Mill Pond is an 8-acre freshwater pond that drains 

into Oyster Bay Harbor at Beekman Beach. The refuge consists largely of subtidal 

habitats 2 m to 9 m in depth, linear strands of intertidal salt marsh, and a minor 

extent of high salt marsh and freshwater wetlands.

Aquatic Habitats

Oyster Bay is the largest refuge in the Complex. Its 3,204 acres of bay bottom, 

salt marsh, and a small freshwater wetland are managed principally for use by 

migratory waterfowl and other waterbirds. It is also one of the few bay-bottom 

refuges owned and managed by the Service. Bay bottom composes 78 percent 

of the refuge; unconsolidated shoreline, 3 percent; Spartina alterniflora fringe 

along the shore, 5 percent; high marsh at the west end of the harbor, 5 percent; 

and an estuarine stream bed makes up the remainder, approximately 9 percent. 

The refuge is located off Long Island Sound, and the sheltered nature of the bay 

makes it extremely attractive as winter habitat for a variety of waterfowl species, 

especially diving ducks. 

The State of New York has designated the Oyster Bay area as a Significant 

Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat. Marine wildlife common to the refuge includes 

harbor seals, diamondback terrapins, and several species of sea turtles. Shellfish 

and finfish are abundant at Oyster Bay. The bay supports the only commercial 

oyster farm aquaculture operation remaining on Long Island, and an estimated 

90 percent of the commercial oysters in New York originates from areas associated 

with the refuge. 

Oyster Bay receives the greatest amount of public use of any refuge on Long 

Island. Recreational boaters use it heavily from May through September: on peak 

weekends, approximately 3,000 boats use the refuge; on weekdays, 1,000 boats per 

day are common. The construction and expansion of un-permitted docks and other 

shoreline structures is a major concern on the refuge, as is general water quality.

Fish and Wildlife

More than 126 bird species have been documented at the refuge, including 23 

species of waterfowl. Numerous waterfowl species over-winter in Oyster Bay; 

Biological Environment - Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 3

3-30 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Produced by Long Island NWR Complex, Shirley, New YorkBase Map: USGS 2001 Digital OrthophotographyVegetation Data: USFWS 1994 NVCS mappingRefuge boundary: USFWS, Region 5, Div. of Realty 2004Datum and projection: NAD 1983, UTM Zone 18, MetersMap Date: 3/200

O

6

y

ster B

a

y

N

atio

n

al Wildlife

R

efu

g

e - Fro

st Cre

e

k

U

nit

U.S. Fis

h

&

Wildlife

S

ervic

e

Nassau County, New

York

Vegetatio

n

C

o

ver M

a

p

M

a

p

3-6

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

0 0.25 0.5 0.75

Kilometers

1:13,312

Vegetation Cover

North Atlantic Low

Salt Marsh

Spartina alterniflora /(Ascophyllum nodosum)Acadian / Virginian ZoneHerbaceous VegetationSalt Shrub Baccharishalimifolia - Iva frutescens /Spartina patens ShrublandReed-grass MarshPhragmites australis TidalHerbaceous VegetationAcer rubrum - Fraxinus(pennsylvanica, americana) /Lindera benzoin /Sym

plocarpus foetidus Forest

Turf GrassWaterSandSand BeachBridgeRobinia pseudoacacia ForestRefuge Boundary(84 Acres)
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3-31

T

o

p

o

gra

p

hic M

a

p

M

a

p

3-7

Produced by Long Island NW

R

Complex, Shirley, New

York

Bathymetric DEM: USGS National Mapping ProgramRefuge boundary: USFWS, Region 5, Div. of Realty 2004Datum and projection: NAD 1983, UTM Zone 18, MetersMap Date: 3/2006

1:44,501

0 1 2

Miles

0 1 2 3

Kilometers

Refuge Boundary(3,204 Acres)

O

y

ster B

a

y

N

atio

n

al Wildlife

R

efu

g

e

U.S. Fish &

Wildlife

S

ervic

e

Nassau County, New

York

Biological Environment - Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 3

3-32 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

more than 20,000 ducks have been reported for one survey during peak use. The 

other waterbirds the refuge supports in large numbers include double-crested 

cormorants, Forster’s and common terns, wading birds, and shorebirds. Certain 

areas of Oyster Bay, like Mill Neck Creek and Frost Creek, provide breeding 

habitat for black duck, clapper rail, and osprey. 

Birds

Raptors.—Ospreys, a state-designated species of concern, nest and have successfully 

fledged their young along the Mill Neck Creek marsh. Other raptor species 

observed at Oyster Bay include the northern harrier, red-tailed hawk, American 

kestrel, merlin and sharp-shinned hawk.

Waterfowl.—Oyster Bay has the greatest winter waterfowl use of any of the Long 

Island refuges. The numbers of waterfowl using Oyster Bay are lowest from May 

through August, and start to increase in September and October. Puddle ducks 

such as black ducks, gadwall, and mallards start migrating to the refuge in early 

autumn, and their diversity begins to increase in November. Waterfowl numbers 

peak and remain high from December through March, then decline in April. The 

New York Department of State has singled out Oyster Bay as having the greatest 

concentration of waterfowl on Long Island’s north shore.

The three waterfowl species that most commonly use the refuge in winter 

include the greater scaup, bufflehead, and black duck. Those species compose 

approximately 85 percent of all ducks using the refuge. Greater scaup compose 

more than half; bufflehead make up 20 percent; and black duck, the most common 

puddle duck species, close to 10 percent.

Waterfowl use is not uniform across the refuge. The Bayville, Cold Spring Harbor, 

and Mill Neck Creek areas support in excess of 80 percent of that use. Bayville 

alone accounts for nearly half. The majority of the greater scaup and bufflehead on 

the refuge use its Bayville and Cold Spring Harbor sections, while the Mill Neck 

Creek section had the greatest use by black duck and canvasback. 

Shorebirds, Gulls, Terns and Allied Species.—The most common waterbird on the 

refuge is the double-crested cormorant, which is seen year-round. Its numbers are 

highest from April through October. Great cormorants appear at low numbers in 

the winter. Other waterbirds that use the refuge include loons, grebes, herons, and 

egrets.

Gulls are common on the refuge, and normally reach a maximum of about 

1,500 birds in the winter. Herring gulls are more numerous in winter than in the 

warmer months. Great black-backed gulls are present year-round, but are less 

numerous than herring gulls. Ring-billed gulls also are common in the winter 

months but they, too, are fewer than herring gulls. Laughing gulls use the refuge in 

the summer, and Bonaparte’s gulls in the winter.

Terns use Oyster Bay from May through October. Common and least tern use is 

heaviest from May through August. Forster’s terns are present on the refuge in 

good numbers in September and October.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3-33

Seven species of shorebirds are commonly observed on the refuge. The most 

common include black-bellied plovers, dunlins, greater yellowlegs, and least and 

spotted sandpipers.

Mammals

Harbor seals are observed on the refuge primarily in March.

Reptiles and Amphibians 

The northern diamondback terrapin is common at Oyster Bay, particularly in the 

Frost Creek and Mill Neck Creek sections. The refuge is considered to have one of 

the largest populations of diamondback terrapins on Long Island.

Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species

Federal- and state-designated endangered or threatened species known to use 

Oyster Bay include the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, northern harrier, least tern, 

and Kemp’s ridley and loggerhead sea turtles. Peregrine falcons typically migrate 

through Oyster Bay in the autumn and spring. Bald eagles visit the refuge 

sporadically in winter. Ospreys nest and have successfully fledged young on the 

refuge. Northern harriers are observed in their spring and autumn migrations. 

Atlantic loggerhead and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles are known to forage in Oyster 

Bay. However, sightings of the turtles are rare, and on those occasions they are 

usually the victims of an injury or cold stunning.

Harbor seals

John Mosesso, Jr./NBII

Biological Environment - Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 3

3-34 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Sayville Unit

Sayville, a sub-unit of Wertheim, is located in West Sayville, New York, about 

2 miles inland from the Great South Bay. This is the only land-locked refuge in the 

Complex (see map 3-8).

Terrestrial Habitats

Sayville, and its associated 101-acre FAA property, consists primarily of pitch pine 

and scrub oak stands, interspersed with grasslands dominated by little bluestem. 

The FAA property supports the largest population in New York State of the 

federally listed endangered sandplain gerardia. The continual management of 

sandplain gerardia at Sayville and other Complex refuges is vital for its recovery. 

The FAA was legally mandated to transfer the 101-acre property to the Service 

after the buildings were removed. At this point, the buildings have been removed, 

but the property has yet to be transferred.

A variety of terrestrial migratory birds uses the refuge, and the potential exists for 

attracting more grassland-dependent birds.

Fish and Wildlife

The lack of surface waters at Sayville limits its species diversity to terrestrial 

species. Its terrestrial habitats, young pitch pines, scrub oaks, and grasslands, 

provide excellent habitat for Neotropical migratory birds and resident passerines. 

Birds

Raptors.—Sayville provides important migratory habitat for certain raptor 

species, particularly American kestrel, and sharp-shinned, Cooper’s, and red-tailed 

hawks.

Other Migratory Birds.—Songbirds are a conspicuous component of species at 

Sayville. That songbird community is diverse, and includes many Neotropical 

migrant species. Breeding songbirds dominant in forested habitats include the 

ovenbird, American redstart, common yellowthroat, gray catbird, and rufous-sided 

towhee. Breeding songbirds dominant in shrub and grassland habitats include song 

sparrows, swallows, and blue-winged, yellow, and prairie warblers.

Mammals

Dominant terrestrial mammals include white-tailed deer, eastern cottontail, gray 

squirrel, eastern mole, eastern chipmunk, white-footed mouse, meadow vole, red 

fox, opossum, short-tailed shrew, and raccoon. 

Reptiles and Amphibians

Eastern box turtles and eastern hognose snakes are of interest because of their 

perceived current decline on Long Island, where both were once considered 

abundant, dominant species. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3-35 FAA PROPERTY

SAYVILLE UNIT

Sayville Unit of Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge and FAA Site

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Suffolk County, New York

Vegetation Cover Map

Map 3-8

Produced by Long Island NWR Complex, Shirley, New YorkBase Map: USGS 2001 Digital OrthophotographyVegetation Data: USFWS 1994 NVCS mappingRefuge boundary: USFWS, Region 5, Div. of Realty 2004Datum and projection: NAD 1983, UTM Zone 18, MetersMap Date: 3/2006

Dirt PathDrivewayPaved RoadSidewalk

Vegetation Cover

Slab

1:6,091

0 0.1 0.2

Miles

0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Kilometers

FAA Property Boundary(101 Acres)

Unit Boundary (26 Acres)BuildingOld-field Red-cedar ForestJuniperus virginiana Forest

Pitch Pine - Oak CoastalForest Pinus rigida -Quercus coccinea/ Vaccinium pallidum -(Morella pensylvanica)Forest

Biological Environment - Sayville Unit
Chapter 3

3-36 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species

On September 7, 1988, sandplain gerardia was listed as an endangered species 

under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The 

plant is known to grow at two sites on Cape Cod, six sites on Long Island, one site 

in Baltimore County, Maryland, and one site in Washington County, Rhode Island. 

Its overall population has declined from 49 historical records to the 10 populations 

that remain today. Its decline can be attributed to the loss and degradation of 

suitable habitat caused by increased development, vegetative succession, and 

changing historical disturbance regimes.

Sandplain gerardia

Don Sias/TNC
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3-37

Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge

Seatuck is located on Long Island’s south shore in Islip, New York. The 

refuge borders the National Audubon Scully Sanctuary to the west, suburban 

development to the north, Champlin Creek to the east, and Great South Bay to the 

south. We acquired the 196-acre refuge in 1968 by donation from the Peters family 

under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act “...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, 

or for any other management purposes, for migratory birds” (1929). See maps 3-9 

and 3-10.

Terrestrial Habitats

Upland habitats including old fields, brush, and woodland form about one-half of 

Seatuck. The upland habitats are equally divided among mixed-oak woodland, red 

maple stands, upland shrub, and grasslands. Pine barren habitat also is present. 

The grasslands are about equally divided between cool season and warm season 

grassland types.

The wildlife attracted to the upland areas includes nesting purple martins, 

white-tailed deer, red fox and songbirds. The coastal setting and habitats appeal 

to numerous migrating raptors. Our management includes protecting forest, 

managing grassland, controlling invasive species, maintaining nesting structures, 

and restoring derelict lands.

Wetland Habitats

The remaining half of the refuge is salt marsh, consisting largely of salt hay and 

expansive salt pannes. Stands of great reed intermix in the marsh, and also form 

a wide buffer along its upland edge. Freshwater wetlands and ponds also are 

present. The bulk of the aquatic habitats include salt marsh and subtidal types. The 

numerous wildlife species present include waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and 

nesting ospreys.

Fish and Wildlife

Seatuck is essentially an island of wildlife habitat surrounded by suburban 

development. More than 210 avian species have been documented at the refuge. 

Mammals, including white-tailed deer, raccoon and red fox, are common and 

conspicuous. Ospreys, a state species of special concern, nest on the refuge. 

Peregrine falcons routinely have been observed. Waterfowl, including black 

ducks, are present year-round, but are most common in winter. Wading birds and 

shorebirds are conspicuous at the refuge. In the breeding and migrating seasons, 

songbirds are found in various upland areas.

Birds

Raptors.—Seatuck provides important habitat for raptors moving along the 

Long Island coast. They are commonly observed at the refuge in their spring and 

autumn migrations. 

Biological Environment - Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 3

3-38 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Produced by Long Island NWR Complex, Shirley, New York

Base Map: USGS 2001 Digital Orthophotography

Vegetation Data: USFWS 1994 NVCS mapping

Refuge boundary: USFWS, Region 5, Div. of Realty 2004

Datum and projection: NAD 1983, UTM Zone 18, Meters

Map Date: 3/2006

1:8,220

0 0.2 0.4

Miles

0 0.2 0.4 0.6

Kilometers

Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Suffolk County, New York

Vegetation Cover Map

Map 3-9

Building

Dirt Driveway

Dirt Road

Paved Road

Sand Beach

Water

Sand

Turf Grass

Refuge Boundary

(209 Acres)

Vegetation Cover

Black Locust Successional

Forest (Robinia pseudoacacia

Forest)

Coastal Oak - Beech Forest

Fagus grandifolia - Quercus

alba - Quercus rubra Forest

Coastal Oak / Heath Forest

Quercus coccinea - Quercus

velutina / Sassafras albidum /

Vaccinium pallidum Forest

Lower New England Red Maple

Swamp Acer rubrum - Fraxinus

(pennsylvanica, americana) /

Lindera benzoin / Symplocarpus

foetidus Forest

North Atlantic High Salt Marsh

Spartina patens - Distichlis

spicata - (Juncus gerardii)

Herbaceous Vegetation

Pitch Pine - Oak Coastal Forest

Pinus rigida - Quercus coccinea /

Vaccinium pallidum - (Morella

pensylvanica) Forest

Reed-grass Marsh Phragmites

australis Tidal Herbaceous

Vegetation

Salt Shrub Baccharis halimifolia -

Iva frutescens / Spartina patens

Shrubland

Sandplain Grassland Morella

pensylvanica / Schizachyrium

littorale - Danthonia spicata Shrub

Herbaceous Vegetation

Successional Maritime Forest

Prunus serotina - Sassafras

albidum - Amelanchier canadensis /

Smilax rotundifolia Shrubland
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3-39

Biological Environment - Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 3

3-40 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Waterfowl.—Seventeen species of waterfowl have been observed on the refuge. 

Long-tailed ducks are observed in January and April. Black duck, greater scaup, 

bufflehead, and red breasted merganser are present in their greatest numbers in 

late fall and winter. Green-winged teals are fairly common in the autumn.

Shorebirds, Gulls, Terns and Allied Species.—Nine species of herons, egrets and 

ibises are commonly observed on the refuge. Great blue herons, snowy egrets, 

green-backed herons, and great egrets are most common. The number of longlegged wading birds peaks in August, and there is a smaller peak earlier in April. 

American bitterns are conspicuous in the winter and, surprisingly, a least bittern, 

rare for Long Island, has been observed on the refuge.

Four species of gulls (herring, great black-backed, ring-billed, and laughing) are 

commonly observed on the refuge. Herring gulls are the most abundant, and 

are present year-round. Least and common terns are observed there from May 

through August.

Other shorebirds observed include yellowlegs, sandpiper, black-bellied plover, 

killdeer, dunlin, and willet. Shorebird numbers peak in August, but high numbers 

are also present in May, July and September.

Other Migratory Birds.—Birds that depend upon forest edges, shrubs, and 

wetlands are most prevalent. On the whole refuge, the most common birds 

detected are red-winged blackbird, common yellowthroat, tree swallow, gray 

catbird, American crow, sharp-tailed sparrow, mourning dove, and northern 

cardinal. 

Mammals

White-tailed deer are the most conspicuous and controversial wildlife species at 

Seatuck. The herd has a high density, and neighbors frequently voice complaints 

about the damage it causes. They have also expressed concerns about the potential 

for deer-vehicle collisions and the incidence of Lyme disease in the community. 

Other species resident on the refuge include gray squirrel, mice, vole, shrew, 

eastern cottontail, red fox, raccoon, and feral cat. 

Fish 

After a salt marsh restoration in 1992, both the diversity and abundance of 

fish species increased dramatically. Ecologically, these forage fish contribute 

significantly to the food web in the Great South Bay estuary. The species 

most commonly observed are the sheepshead minnow, banded killifish, and 

marsh killifish. Others observed include the Atlantic silverside, American eel, 

mosquitofish, menhaden, stickleback, and striped killifish.

Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species

Ospreys, a New York State species of special concern, have been increasing on 

Long Island for the past 5 years. They have nested at Seatuck since 1983, with a 

notable increase in the number of nests and production there. Common terns and 

least terns, State-listed species, forage in the refuge shallows between May and 

August.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3-41

Target Rock National Wildlife Refuge

Target Rock is an 80-acre refuge of mixed upland forest in varying stages of 

succession, a half-mile rocky beach along Huntington Bay, a brackish pond and 

several vernal ponds. The refuge is located on the north shore of Long Island in 

western Suffolk County. See maps 3-11 and 3-12.

Terrestrial Habitats

The refuge consists largely of mature oak forest characteristic of Long Island’s 

north shore. Dominant tree species include the black oak, red oak, white oak, 

hickory and tulip tree. The canopy is open, and individual trees in many cases 

are 60 feet to 80 feet in height. The understory is largely composed of mapleleaved viburnum and mountain laurel, although the presence of other shrubs and 

vines creates impenetrable tangles where the canopy is even more open. Other 

terrestrial habitats include forest openings, red maple forest, and bluffs. The 

areas of sand ridge have juniper trees, which provide habitats for “olive” juniper 

hairstreak butterflies. The eastern prickly pear cactus, a state-protected species, is 

found in the sand ridge areas of the beach.

Wetland Habitats

The refuge contains a 1 acre brackish pond surrounded by marsh elder and 

saltmeadow cordgrass. A small outlet to the south connects it to regular tidal flow.

Aquatic Habitats

The Target Rock beach is regularly flooded. Its exposed, stony shoreline consists 

of rocks ranging in size from gravel to cobble. Boulders in the bay can measure 

View of Huntington Bay from Target Rock refuge.

M. Lin/USFWS

Biological Environment - Target Rock National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 3

3-42 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3-43

Biological Environment - Target Rock National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 3

3-44 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

several feet in height, and rest on two tidal flats thickly encrusted with blue 

mussels. Inland from the shore, the substrate becomes progressively sandier. 

Uplands adjacent to the beach are dominated by beach grass, or otherwise lack 

vegetation.

Several hundred feet of the refuge beach is closed from early spring through 

late summer, to protect nesting bank swallows and belted kingfishers, provide 

undisturbed piping plover habitat, and also provide a beach free of disturbance for 

terns, shorebirds and other wildlife.

Fish and Wildlife

More than 200 avian species have been documented at Target Rock, of which more 

than 50 have been recorded as breeders. The refuge offers suitable habitats for 

many forest-, wetland-, and beach-dependent species, and provides an important 

stopover for many migrants. A variety of marine wildlife use the waters adjacent 

to Target Rock. Harbor seals use the coastline for feeding and loafing, as do 

leatherback and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles. The shoreline supports a marine rocky 

intertidal community. 

The chestnut oak/mountain laurel association and oak hardwood forest offer 

good food and cover for Neotropical songbirds, which are common during spring 

migration. Waterfowl, shorebirds, and waterbirds are common on the beach and 

off-shore. The headlands provide nesting habitat for belted kingfishers and bank 

swallows. Piping plovers use the refuge beach for foraging, and nest on adjacent 

lands.

Birds

Raptors.—The raptors most commonly observed at Target Rock include the great 

horned and eastern screech owls, ospreys, American kestrels, merlins, and sharpshinned, Cooper’s, and red-tailed hawks. Screech owls abound on the refuge, and 

are easily detected.

Waterfowl.—Waterfowl use the brackish pond and the rocky shoreline. Their 

numbers usually peak in winter, from October through March. Puddle ducks 

compose about one-fourth of the ducks using the refuge, and black ducks are 

by far the dominant puddle duck. The most common diving ducks include the 

common goldeneye, greater scaup, long-tailed duck, bufflehead, and red-breasted 

merganser. Harlequin ducks are occasionally observed near the historical Target 

Rock in Huntington Bay.

Shorebirds, Gulls, Terns and Allied Species.—Common loons, red-throated loons, 

great cormorants, and horned grebes are common off the refuge beach in winter. 

In summer, double-crested cormorants are easily observed. Six species of longlegged waders are commonly documented on the refuge, mostly in its brackish 

pond habitat.

Numerous sandpipers also make use of the rocky beach and brackish pond. The 

most common shorebird species include greater yellowlegs, black-bellied plovers, 

semi-palmated plovers, spotted sandpipers, and willets. Common and least terns 

are observed on the refuge from May through September.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3-45

Other Migratory Birds.—Thirty-five Neotropical bird species have been 

documented at Target Rock. The sand bluffs above the refuge beach provide 

a specialized nesting habitat for several avian species. In 2001, approximately 

10 pairs of bank swallows nested, as did belted kingfisher and northern roughwinged swallows. Closing a portion of the refuge beach appears to benefit these 

bluff-nesting species.

Mammals

The species most commonly observed on the refuge include the red fox, gray 

squirrel, eastern chipmunk, and eastern cottontail. White-tailed deer, presumably 

absent since the 1950s, have again been sighted in recent years. 

Marine Mammals.—Harbor seals are observed periodically either swimming 

or hauled out on some of the rocks off the refuge beach. In the last two weeks of 

September 2001, that use was greatest when a harbor seal spent most of its time 

either hauled out on the beach or swimming parallel to it.

Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species

Piping plovers forage on the refuge beach and nest on the beach approximately 

a quarter-mile away from the refuge. State-listed least and common terns also 

forage along the refuge shore. Colonies of those terns as well as piping plovers 

nest directly across from the refuge at Eaton’s Neck in Northport and at Caumsett 

State Park in Lloyd Harbor.

Biological Environment - Target Rock National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 3

3-46 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge

Wertheim is the second-largest refuge in the Complex, at 2,572 acres. The acreage 

of its terrestrial and aquatic habitats is about equal. The terrestrial habitats are 

principally pine barren types; the aquatic habitats include both tidal and non-tidal 

surface types. Tidal waters include bays, ponds, streams, and freshwater, brackish, 

and salt marshes. Non-tidal waters include marshes, ponds, streams, and swamps. 

See maps 3-13 through 3-15.

Terrestrial Habitats

Forests compose more than 90 percent of Wertheim’s uplands. The most common 

forest types include conifer plantations, mixed oak, oak/pitch pine, pioneer 

hardwood, pitch pine, red cedar, and red maple. The refuge is located on the 

periphery of pine barrens, an uncommon forest type in the state. Wertheim was 

designated as a Core Preservation Area within the Central Pine Barrens in 1998.

Figure 3.1 shows the proportion of terrestrial habitats at Wertheim.

Forested wetlands are dispersed among the upland woods and along the four 

tributaries of the Carmans River. Shrub wetlands, forested flood plains, and a 

small number of emergent wetland fringes bound those creeks. Forested wetlands 

also occur along the upland forest and salt marsh edge. On the eastern portion of 

the Carmans River, where the proposed headquarters and visitor center would 

be located, the site best fits the description of a maritime oak forest by Reschke 

(1990), grading into a red maple swamp in the westernmost portions adjacent to 

the river.

The overstory of that site is a closed-canopy (at least 75 percent canopy cover), 

small, sawtimber-sized stand in second growth forest. The dominant tree species 

are red oak, black oak, and white oak with subdominant black cherry and white 

oak. Scattered pitch pines are present but uncommon. In the western portion of 

the proposed site, closest to the Carmans River, soils are wetter and pole-sized red 

maple dominates the overstory. 

The understory in the site is moderately dense (over 50% ground cover) with most 

shrubs being less than 1 m tall. Dominant species were high bush blueberry, black 

huckleberry, low bush blueberry, black cherry, common greenbrier, and dewberry. 

Other species that are present include Virginia creeper, white oak, sassafras, 

arrowwood, poison ivy, and currant. In the wetter soils closer to the river sweet 

pepperbush is a dominant species. 

Grassland and forest openings are permanent herbaceous openings like forest 

meadows or fields. Twenty-four openings contain approximately twenty acres of 

grassland developed or maintained as warm or cold season grassland. Herbaceous 

openings help maintain the diversity of upland habitats at Wertheim.

Wildlife consistently use these forest openings. They provide brood habitat for 

wild turkeys and other gallinaceous birds, herbaceous forage for grazers, and 

nesting habitat for eastern bluebirds and some species of waterfowl. Their use by 

white-tailed deer and bobwhite quail is high, particularly where legumes dominate. 

American woodcocks commonly use 13 of the forested fields as their spring singing 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3-47

Plantation: 0.1%

Improved Grounds: 0.3%

Red Cedar: 1.2%

Pitch Pine: 13.6% Oak Pine: 20.0%

Mixed Oak: 54.3%

Brush: 2.2%

Old Field: 3.5%

Hardwoods: 4.8%

Figure 3.1. Terrestrial habitats at Wertheim

and roosting grounds. In June and early July, eastern box turtles extensively use 

the forest openings. Sharp-shinned hawks and Cooper’s hawks can frequently be 

observed during their spring and autumn passages.

Mixed oak forests occur on more than 600 acres at Wertheim. Canopy dominants 

include black, white, and red oaks - all three of which exist in most stands along 

with hickory. Several blueberry species and black huckleberry make up the 

understory of a mixed oak forest, although green briar and black cherry are also 

common. 

Oak/pitch pine forests are an intermediate between the previous two types and 

have understories similar to the mixed oak type. 

Pitch pine forests occur on 150 acres and are principally located on sandy soil 

types. Mature pitch pine stands exhibit the sparsest woody understory of any 

forest type at Wertheim. 

Red maple forests occur on more than 200 acres and are mainly associated with 

wetlands. Dominants include red maple and tupelo. Red maple forests have the 

most robust understory of all the other forest types. 

Wetland Habitats

Several large salt marshes covering several hundred acres border the Carmans 

River and its tributaries. Approximately 40 percent of the aquatic habitats at 

Wertheim consist of salt marsh and marine waters situated principally along the 

lower Carmans River and Bellport Bay. Another 40 percent consists of freshwater 

and brackish rivers, streams and marshes. Swamps and shrub swamps make up 

the remaining 20 percent. 

Biological Environment - Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 3

3-48 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

The refuge maintains some of its salt marshes as open marsh water management 

areas. Wertheim has more than thirty miles of drainage ditches put in by Suffolk 

County Vector Control in the 1950’s as a mosquito control measure. These ditches, 

located in salt and brackish marshes, destroyed pannes and backwater habitats. 

By plugging these ditches, the refuge has restored pannes habitats and salt marsh 

hydrology, and thereby provided excellent habitat for fish and wildlife.

Wertheim has five impoundments each with some degree of water level control: Big 

Fish Creek Impoundment, sub-impoundment, Pine Pond, Little Neck Run Pond 

and Owl Pond. Four of those are fewer than 10 acres, and three have fixed pipes 

that maintain a constant water level except during certain periods in summer. Big 

Fish Creek impoundment and the sub-impoundment have water control structures 

with flash boards.

The 40 acre Big Fish Creek Impoundment is centrally located on the refuge. Half 

of the impoundment consists of open water with associated submerged aquatic 

vegetation, and the other half consists of robust emergents. The 7 acre subimpoundment constructed adjacent to it in 1989 is 33 percent forested wetland, 

34 percent shrub swamp, 21 percent robust emergent divided between cattail and 

great reed, and 12 percent open water.

Aquatic Habitats

Wertheim is bisected by the Carmans River, a state-designated Wild and Scenic 

River. It is the second-longest brackish river on the island, and the focal point of 

the refuge. Approximately 3 miles of the river and the complex of salt marshes 

adjacent to it is located in the refuge. Yaphank Creek, Little Neck Run, Big 

Fish Creek and Little Fish Creek all join the Carmans River within Wertheim 

boundaries, and are described as freshwater tidal tributaries. The river and stream 

banks are heavily covered with Phragmites. The refuge aquatic habitats include 

a marine bay, tidal river, freshwater streams, ponds, salt marsh, brackish and 

freshwater marsh, red maple swamps and shrub swamps. The refuge protects one 

of the last undeveloped estuary systems remaining on Long Island. 

Carmans River at Wertheirm.

USFWS

Fish and Wildlife

Wertheim hosts nearly 500 vertebrate species and roughly 500 species of vascular 

plants. The refuge encompasses many of the vegetation types on Long Island, 

thereby providing habitat for a variety of wildlife ranging from forest interior 

nesting, Neotropical migrant birds to marine mammals. The coastal location of 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3-49

Sunrise Hwy

Montauk Hwy

Vegetation Cover Map

Produced by Long Island NWR Complex, Shirley, New York

Base Map: USGS 2001 Digital Orthophotography

Vegetation Data: USFWS 1994 NVCS mapping

Refuge boundary: USFWS, Region 5, Div. of Realty 2004

Datum and projection: NAD 1983, UTM Zone 18, Meters

Map Date: 3/2006

Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge

Suffolk County, New York

1:31,587

0 0.5 1

Miles

0 0.5 1 1.5

Kilometers

Vegetation Cover

Marina

Inland Pool

Railroad

Water

Residential, Urban, Developed

Sand/Dirt Road

Row Crop

Old Field

Mature Old Field

Old Field/Autumn Olive

Refuge Boundary (2,572 Acres)

Paved Road

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Map 3-13

Prunus serotina-Amelanchier

canadensis-Fagus grandifoliaQuercus spp. forest alliance

Smilax glauca - Toxicodendron

radicans vine- shrubland

Typha angustifolia - Hibiscus

moscheutos Herbaceous Vegetation

Phragmites Australis Tidal

Herbaceous Alliance

Spartina patens- Distichilis

spicata - Plantago maritima

herbaceous vegetation

Juniperus virginiania-Myrica

pennsylvanicum woodland

(Trees generally less than 4m)

Quercus Velutina - Quercus Alba -

(Quercus Coccinea) Forest Alliance

Quercus (alba, rubra, velutina) /

Cornus florida / Viburnum

acerifolium Forest

Quercus coccinea - Quercus

velutina / Sassafras albidum /

Vaccinium pallidum Forest

Pinus rigida - Quercus coccinea /

Vaccinium pallidum - (Myrica

pensylvanica) Forest

Acer Rubrum - Nyssa Sylvatica

Saturates Forest Alliance

Biological Environment - Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 3

3-50 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3-51

Biological Environment - Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 3

3-52 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

the refuge also makes it part of a major migration corridor for a variety of birds 

including waterfowl, waterbirds, raptors, and songbirds. Avian species are the 

largest single class of vertebrates at the Complex, with more than 200 bird 

species having been documented at Wertheim.

Birds

Raptors.—The coastal location of the refuge makes it an important migratory area 

for certain raptor species, in particular the northern harrier, osprey, peregrine 

falcon, sharp shinned hawk, Cooper’s hawk, kestrel, merlin, saw whet owl, and 

short eared owl. Common nesting raptors include osprey, northern harrier, redtailed hawk, great horned owl, and screech owl. Bald eagles are observed during 

fall migration, and immature eagles over-wintered at the refuge in 2003 and 2004.

Waterfowl.—Waterfowl use is extensive and the refuge serves as important 

wintering habitat for waterfowl between October and March. Principal species 

include black duck, greater scaup, bufflehead, gadwall, and red-breasted 

merganser. Green-winged teal are abundant during migration. Wood ducks are 

prolific nesters, while each year, black ducks and mallards rear several broods, as 

well. 

Waterbirds, Shorebirds, Gulls, Terns and Allied Species.—Waterbird use is 

common with peak periods for long-legged wading birds, terns, shorebirds and 

other waterbirds occurring in the warmer months. Nine species of herons, egrets 

and ibises are commonly observed on the refuge. Great blue herons, snowy egrets, 

green-backed herons, and great egrets are most common, with great blue herons 

present year-round. The number of long-legged wading birds peaks in August and 

there is a smaller peak earlier in April. American bitterns, a state-listed species of 

special concern, are present in the winter.

Herring, great black-backed, laughing, and ring billed gulls are commonly 

observed at the refuge. Herring gulls are the most common, and are present yearround. Great black-backed gulls are the next most common species. 

Other marsh and waterbird species observed on the refuge include the doublecrested cormorant, common loon, pied-billed grebe, sora, and belted kingfisher.

Least and common terns are observed on the refuge from May through August. 

Other shorebirds observed include greater yellowlegs, least sandpiper, blackbellied plover, killdeer, spotted sandpiper, short-billed dowitcher, semi-palmated 

sandpiper, dunlin, and willet. Shorebird numbers peak in August, but high numbers 

are also present in the months of May, July, and September. 

Other Migratory Birds.—Songbirds are a conspicuous component at Wertheim 

and a major attraction for many of the visitors. The songbird community is 

diverse and includes many Neotropical migrant species. Dominant breeding 

songbirds of forested habitats include ovenbird, American redstart, yellowthroat, 

catbird, rufous-sided towhee, great crested flycatcher, eastern wood peewee, blue 

jay, Carolina wren, wood thrush, red-eyed vireo, pine warbler, northern oriole, 

northern mockingbird, and brown thrasher. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3-53

Dominant breeding songbirds of shrub and grassland habitats include the song 

sparrow, tree swallow, yellow warbler, mockingbird, barn swallow, house wren, 

northern cardinal, and American goldfinch. Breeding birds of tidal wetlands 

are dominated by the sharp-tailed sparrow, marsh wren, song sparrow, seaside 

sparrow, red winged blackbird, and the tree swallow. The refuge also provides 

important stop-over habitat during migration for many species using the coastal 

migration corridor. Prominent winter songbirds at the refuge include the white 

throated sparrow, dark eyed junco, black capped chickadee, white breasted 

nuthatch, tufted titmouse, northern cardinal, and blue jay. Purple finch, evening 

grosbeak, red crossbill, and pine siskin use the refuge extensively in periodic hard 

winters. 

Reptiles and Amphibians

Approximately 30 species of reptiles and amphibians occur at the refuge. Dominant 

freshwater reptiles include the eastern snapping turtle, eastern painted turtle, 

spotted turtle, and the northern watersnake. The dominant reptile of tidal habitats 

is the diamondback terrapin. Eastern box turtle, black racer, eastern milk snake, 

eastern ribbon snake, and the common garter snake are the dominant reptile 

species of terrestrial habitats. Eastern box turtles and eastern hognose snakes are 

of interest because of the perceived current decline of these species on Long Island 

where both were once considered abundant and dominant species. 

Common amphibians include red-backed salamander, bullfrog, green frog, wood 

frog, Fowlers toad, and spring peeper.

Mammals

Approximately 30 species of mammals have been documented at the refuge. 

White-tailed deer, eastern cottontail, gray squirrel, red fox, eastern chipmunk, 

and muskrat are commonly observed. Harbor seals are the most common marine 

mammal, although irregular in occurrence at the refuge. Bats compose about a 

quarter of the mammalian species and the little brown bat, big brown bat, eastern 

pipistrelle, and the red bat are the most common. 

Fish

The refuge possesses a diversity of aquatic habitats ranging from marine to 

freshwater and tidal to non-tidal as well as stream and pond habitats. The fish 

community reflects this diversity of habitats. Salt marshes support an interesting 

array of killifish species, bays provide seasonal habitat for many important 

commercial marine species, tidal rivers and streams support both catadromous 

and anadromous species, freshwater streams serve as trout habitat, and ponds and 

impoundments support warm water fisheries. Dominant species include American 

eel, Atlantic silversides, summer flounder, pumpkinseed, blueback herring, alewife, 

banded killifish, sheepshead minnow, striped bass, winter flounder, and bluefish. 

The presence of sea-run or “salter” brook trout in Yaphank Creek is a unique 

occurrence on Long Island.

Biological Environment - Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 3

3-54 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species

Federally designated endangered or threatened species occur at Wertheim 

intermittently, but do not use the refuge in the breeding season. They include 

roseate tern, bald eagle, and the loggerhead sea turtle. State-listed endangered 

or threatened species at Wertheim—not already listed by federal authorities—

include golden eagle, peregrine falcon, black rail, and king rail; black, common, and 

least tern; and short-eared owl, loggerhead shrike, pied-billed grebe, least bittern, 

northern harrier, upland sandpiper, sedge wren, and eastern mud turtle (USFWS 

1995, NYSDEC 2003). The tiger salamander, northern cricket frog, Hessel’s 

hairstreak, and frosted elfin are state-listed threatened and endangered species 

whose presence at Wertheim is likely, but unconfirmed (USFWS 1995). Page 3-12 

details some of the habitat preferences of the species listed above. Table 3.3 lists 

species of special concern at Wertheim. Refer to appendix A for a complete species 

list.

Chapter 3

����������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������ ������ ���������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������

Table 3.3. Species of Special Concern at Wertheim 

common loon (Gavia immer)

American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus) 

osprey (Pandion haliaetus) 

sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) 

Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) 

northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) 

red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) 

black skimmer (Rynchops niger) 

common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor) 

whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferous) 

red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus) 

horned lark (Eremophila alpestris) 

golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) 

cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea) 

yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens) 

grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) 

seaside sparrow (Ammospiza maritima) 

vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus) 

spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata) 

eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina) 

worm snake (Carphophis amoenus) 

eastern hognose snake (Heterodon platyrhinos) 

eastern spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus holbrooki) 

southern leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala) 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3-55

Early History

The Unkechaug Indians were one of the 13 tribes making up the Long Island 

confederacy. They had a population of 6,500 at the time of the first white settlement 

in 1635. The Unkechaugs, Poosepatucks, Shinnecock, and Montauk tribes 

continued to live in communities that in time became reservations (Borg and 

Shreeve 1974).

The first white settlers came to Suffolk County, Long Island in 1635. They were of 

English origin and crossed Long Island Sound from colonies in Massachusetts and 

Connecticut. Early occupations included whaling, grist and saw milling, fulling, ice 

harvesting, salt haying, duck hunting, and fishing (Borg and Shreeve 1974).

The whaling industry began in 1667 when settlers agreed to pay the Unkechaugs 

for every whale they delivered. The Carmans River was important for shore-based 

whaling crews as well as small coastal trading vessels.

Recent History

By the 1940s, villages and hamlets dominated Nassau and Suffolk Counties and 

aviation and agriculture prevailed as industries. In the 1950s and ‘60s people 

moved their families to Long Island and transformed the villages and hamlets into 

suburban sprawl. Over the past 50 years, the population of Nassau and Suffolk 

Counties more than tripled to 2.6 million. 

It is interesting to note that adjacent to Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge is 

the Sagamore Hill National Historic Site, operated by the National Park Service. 

With over 40,000 visitors per year, Sagamore Hill is an 83-acre site that was the 

home of Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States, from 1885 until 

his death in 1919. From 1902 to 1908 his “Summer White House” was the focus of 

international attention. Theodore Roosevelt is also credited as the founder of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System when he designated Florida’s Pelican Island as 

the first refuge in 1903.

Archaeology and Historic Structures

The USFWS Region 5 archeologists have conducted several small surveys at the 

Complex, but no comprehensive survey has been done of the Complex’s individual 

refuges. One structure, the L-Shaped Barn, at Seatuck has been designated as 

historic on the National Register of Historic Places. No other structures at the 

Complex have been listed on the Register. The Complex does possess several small 

historic cemeteries which are protected from disturbance.

Museum Property

The Department of the Interior identifies several major categories of museum 

property: archaeological collections, ethnographic materials, art, documents which 

are not official records as defined by the National Archives, historical objects 

related to the Service, environmental samples, and botanical, geological, zoological, 

and paleontological collections (USFWS 1997). A Museum Property Survey 

identified five items of museum property at the Complex: one historical object each 

at Morton and Seatuck, and three zoological items at Wertheim.

History and 

Cultural 

Resources

History and Cultural Resources
Chapter 3

3-56 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Refuge Contributions to the Local Economy

Refuge Revenue Sharing

The Complex contributes directly to its local economy through revenue sharing 

payments. The Federal Government does not pay property tax on refuge lands, 

but instead, pays refuge revenue sharing to local taxing authorities based on a 

maximum of three-quarters of 1 percent of the fair market value of refuge land, 

which is determined by an appraisal every 5 years. The actual amount distributed 

each year varies by the amount of congressional appropriations. Please refer to 

appendix B for more information. That amount also changes as we acquire new 

lands. Table 3.4 shows the amounts the Complex contributed to Nassau and Suffolk 

counties between fiscal years 2000 and 2004.

Socioeconomic 

Environment

3-62 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

������ ��������������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������

Refuge Revenue Sharing ������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������ ���������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������������� �����������������������������������

Socioeconomic

Environment

Refuge

Contributions to

the Local Economy

Table 3.4. Refuge revenue sharing payments from the Complex to 

Nassau and Suffolk counties.

Year Total Paid to Nassau County* Total Paid to Suffolk County** 

2000 $1,222 $184,637 

2001 $1,247 $287,816 

2002 $993 $256,539 

2003 $1,120 $287,386 

2004 $990 $255,831 

*Includes Oyster Bay refuge. 

**Includes Amagansett, Conscience Point, Morton, Seatuck, Target Rock, and 

Wertheim refuges. 

Public Use ���������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������ �������������������������������������������������������������������

Public Use

The public use program at the Complex focuses on wildlife-dependent recreation, 

including environmental education, nature interpretation, wildlife observation, 

photography, and fishing. Public relations and outreach are also a significant part 

of our public use program. Map 4-1 in chapter 4 features public use opportunities 

available at each refuge. Additional maps in this chapter show the locations of 

facilities and nature trails available at refuges that are open to public use.

Environmental Education

Suffolk and Nassau counties contain 129 public school districts with roughly 30,000 

teachers and about 390,000 students. We estimate an average of 5,000 students 

visit Wertheim, Target Rock, and Morton each year. Approximately 3,000 students 

canoe the Carmans River at Wertheim each year. The potential is tremendous for 

increasing the number of environmental education users. School and scout groups 

account for 90 percent of the requests for refuge-staff-guided programs.

Teachers use Morton, Target Rock and Wertheim refuges, and historically used 

Lido Beach, where teacher workshops and school programs frequently were 

conducted by the Sealink Environmental Center, Long Beach School District. The 

potential for rekindling interest in Lido Beach is great, and that goal is attainable.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3-57

In the past, our outdoor recreation planner worked closely with local school 

teachers in teacher workshops and by individual appointment to empower teachers 

to guide their own class trips on the refuges open for environmental education. 

A teaching-about-wetlands workshop developed for Wertheim was well received 

by teachers and scout leaders, and served as a test case for developing similar 

workshops at other refuges in the Complex. Local teachers are now testing similar 

packets drafted for teacher-guided environmental education programs. The 

outdoor recreation planner position is currently vacant.

The Friends of the Bay and The Waterfront Center are promoting marine 

environmental education programs for schools as well as for the public in 

the Oyster Bay area. The Complex has been invited to participate in teacher 

workshops, guided programs, exhibits about Oyster Bay, and literature. Our staff 

continues to work with those partners to promote stewardship and appreciation for 

Oyster Bay.

Interpretation

Fourteen million people live within a 2-hour drive of the Long Island refuges. 

Even with little media coverage, the Complex still receives nearly 500,000 visitors 

per year. Staff-guided interpretation programs are given on request, when time 

permits. Wertheim, Target Rock, and Morton now offer self-guided trails. In 2001, 

much work was done to improve interpretation on the Complex, and continues 

today. Three new brochures became available to the public in 2001: bird, mammal, 

and general. A reptile and amphibian brochure, a Target Rock trail guide, and 

a Morton trail brochure were developed in 2003. Our staff directed much of its 

energy toward Target Rock, improving its trail surface for safety and ease of 

walking, relocating the trail head and developing a new trail guide, updating the 

information kiosk with new interpretive signs, and adding an overlook where 

visitors can stop to view Huntington Bay.

Refuge staff also improved the Wertheim trail, resurfacing it and making a 1-mile 

portion barrier-free, and adding SoundPost panels that give audio information 

at the touch of a button. New 

interpretive signs also update the 

information kiosk, and the new trail 

guide is an effective tool for the public 

and educators.

Similarly, trail work at Morton 

involved renewing the surface and 

creating a barrier-free section leading 

to the refuge beach and ending in a 

deck or observation platform. A new 

trail guide and updated interpretive 

signs accompany our plans now 

underway to create a demonstration 

garden of native plant species.

The Complex lacks a visitor center. 

However, a visitor center has been 

Environmental education activity at Wertheim.

B. Stewart/USFWS

Socioeconomic Environment
Chapter 3

3-58 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

proposed and was evaluated as recently as 2001. We continue to plan for the 

development and completion of a visitor center with refuge headquarters. See 

chapter 4 and appendix G for details.

Wildlife Observation and Photography

Visitors enjoy observing wildlife by using the nature trails and beaches at 

Morton and Target Rock. Observation at Wertheim offers the use of nature 

trails, the refuge entrance road, and canoeing or kayaking the Carmans River. 

Observation and photography blinds help visitors get a better view and minimize 

the disturbance of wildlife. Wildlife photographers may obtain special use permits 

to photograph wildlife in closed areas on the refuges. Traditionally, permitted 

photographers have allowed the Complex to use their images free of charge in its 

publications and audio/visual programs, and have become important partners.

Hunting and Fishing

Currently, public waterfowl hunting is not allowed on any of the Complex refuges. 

Biologists conducted an environmental assessment to investigate the possibility of 

hunting the overabundant white-tailed deer at Wertheim. That was approved, and 

began in the fall 2005.

Long Island holds the majority of New York’s wintering waterfowl. Tens of 

thousands of ducks and geese of at least 28 species are available to Long Island’s 

waterfowlers. The various seasons run from early September through early March. 

Most waterfowlers hunt on the tidal marshes, bays, and creeks along the shore. 

In years when the Atlantic Flyway Council approves the liberal alternative for 

New York, the state offers a long season of approximately 105 days, a 6-bird daily 

bag limit for most species, and a 7-bird daily limit to those hunting scoters, eiders 

and long-tailed ducks in Long Island Sound and the Peconic Bays. The seasons or 

limits are reduced when the council approves the moderate, restrictive, or very 

restrictive alternatives for the state. 

Many duck hunters pursue the dabbler species, particularly black duck, with 

mallard, pintail, widgeon, gadwall and green-winged teal making up most of the 

harvest. Hunters that seek the diving duck species generally set for bluebills like 

the greater scaup, and typically encounter a variety of other open water species, 

including bufflehead, goldeneye and redhead. Canada geese and brant are popular 

in the western bays of the south shore.

Most tidal areas are publicly owned, and can be hunted without special permission; 

however, access is often difficult. The successful hunt generally requires a 

seaworthy grassboat well-camouflaged with salt hay, or a scooter painted to 

resemble waves or ice for open bay bluebill rigs. For the hunter willing to scout, 

some good freshwater shooting for puddle ducks can still be found in eastern 

Suffolk County. The eastern portion of the county also provides excellent gooseshooting from leased lands or guided blinds. Regulations are subject to change, 

and hunters should consult the regulations for the current year for restrictions on 

certain species.

The Suffolk County Department of Parks, Recreation, and Conservation offers 

waterfowl and deer hunting programs in some of its parks. The county waterfowl 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3-59

program at South Haven County Park is especially geared toward the novice 

waterfowl hunter. The National Park Service permits waterfowl hunting from the 

Fire Island National Seashore.

Special access permits are required for all of these controlled hunting areas. 

Private lands are often posted; however, with some work, open areas can be found. 

In all cases, every hunter should obtain landowner permission before hunting on 

any area. As Long Island becomes increasingly developed, the resulting loss of 

habitat will continue to take its toll on wildlife and hunting opportunities. 

Migratory game bird seasons are set based on five migratory game bird hunting 

zones that have been approved by the Service. All dates listed are tentative 

until we adopt the Final Federal Frameworks for migratory game bird hunting 

regulations in late summer. All New York waterfowl hunters are required to 

register for the Harvest Information Program. The HIP is a federally mandated 

program used solely to survey migratory game bird hunters. 

Fishing is permitted on the Carmans River at Wertheim, from the beaches 

of Morton, Target Rock, and Amagansett, and at Oyster Bay. Table 3.5 lists 

information about fishing opportunities at the Complex. Fishing licenses are not 

required, because these waters are considered to be tidal waters. The exception is 

Mill Neck Pond at Oyster Bay, where a state fishing license is required. New York 

State regulations governing creel and size limit of fin fish and shellfish are in effect 

at all Complex refuges for species such as striped bass, fluke, flounder, weakfish, 

and other sport fish. Recreational and commercial trapping are not permitted on 

any of the refuges.

Chapter 3

3-66 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

��������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������ ���������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������ ����������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������ ���������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������������������������ ����������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������

Table 3.5. Fishing information and opportunities at the Complex. 

Refuge *Anglers 

per Year 

Nearest 

Highway Comments Available Fish Species 

Amagansett 180 Montauk Hwy., 

27A, 80 

Shore access. Parking on town property 

only; a permit may be required. 

Striped bass, weakfish, Atlantic mackerel, 

flounder. 

Morton 50 Hwy. 27 Shore access. Trails and portions of 

beach closed April 1–mid-August. 

Striped bass, weakfish, Atlantic mackerel, 

flounder, bluefish, tautog, ling, eel blowfish. 

Oyster Bay 50,000 Long Island 

Expressway 

Access from town launches or Long 

Island Sound. 

Striped bass, weakfish, Atlantic mackerel, 

flounder, bluefish, spotted seatrout. 

Target Rock 500 Hwy. 110 Shore access. Good access roads. Striped bass, weakfish, blackfish, Atlantic 

mackerel, flounder. 

Wertheim 2,500 Hwys. 27, 46, 80 **Riverbank and boat access. 

Striped bass, weakfish, brown trout, brook 

trout, rainbow trout, carp, largemouth bass, 

white perch. 

*Estimated average number of anglers per year. 

**Canoe, kayak and shore access to the Carmans River available at the fishing access site on Montauk Hwy Rt.27A/ CR 80. Fishing 

from riverbank permitted year-round between the Sunrise and Montauk Highways, and Squassux Landing at the end of Beaver Dam 

Road in Brookhaven. Fishing from a boat is permitted anywhere except on Big Fish Creek Pond. 

Socioeconomic Environment
Chapter 3

3-60 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Public Relations

Each year, Long Island receives an estimated 26 million visits, and the Complex 

receives an estimated 500,000 visits. We issue 6 to 12 news releases annually to 25 

local and regional newspapers, radio, and television media, and invite them to the 

refuges when newsworthy events occur. News 12 Long Island broadcasts from one 

to three stories about the Complex each year.

Complex staff will present onsite programs to organized groups at Wertheim, 

Morton, and Target Rock on request when staff time permits. Offsite programs are 

conducted in Suffolk and Nassau Counties in association with various government 

and non-government organizations. Most of those programs are family- or 

education-oriented.

The political climate is very dynamic in the heavily populated area around the 

Complex. The refuge manager and staff work diligently year-round to maintain 

open lines of communication with concerned citizens, local, state, and federal 

politicians. Our outreach includes meetings in person, conference calls, letters and 

publications, and attending special events.

Non-Wildlife-Dependent Recreation

Wertheim and Oyster Bay accommodate canoeing, kayaking, and row boating. 

Private boat rentals do business near both refuges. Approximately 9,000 canoeists 

visit the Carmans River each year. Boat rentals at Oyster Bay are assumed to 

number in the hundreds.

Many non-wildlife-oriented recreational uses are not permitted on national 

wildlife refuges. Activities generally not permitted or encouraged include 

camping, picnicking, swimming, using off-road vehicles, power boating, house 

boating, surfing, waterskiing, jogging, bicycling, horseback riding, and operating 

concessions. However, an occasional exception may be permitted.

The Complex has the authority to regulate the Town of Brookhaven docks at 

Squassux Landing Marina on the Carmans River at Wertheim, where the docks 

extend into the refuge. The U.S. Coast Guard considers both areas navigable 

waters.

Socio-Political Climate

We based the following information on information obtained from the New York 

State Office of Parks and Recreation (2003). The type of recreational facilities 

provided by different types of operators or owners varies considerably. Those 

differences usually are based on geography, the activity, and the provider.

Federal

The role of the Federal Government in directly providing recreational resources in 

New York State is fairly limited; it provides less than 5 percent of the recreational 

acreage and less than 1 percent of the recreational sites. A major element of the 

federal recreation program is to assist localities through its various programs, 

rather than maintain and operate federal facilities. Nevertheless, the Federal 

Government does maintain recreation areas owned and managed by a number 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3-61

of different agencies: the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

One of the most notable federal sites on Long Island is the Fire Island National 

Seashore, only 1 hour east of New York City. The opportunities it offers include 

32 miles of sandy beaches, a “sunken” forest of 300-year-old holly trees, hiking 

trails, saltwater marshes, New York State’s only federally designated wilderness, 

and one of the tallest lighthouses in the United States. Tours are also available 

in the home of William Floyd, one of Long Island’s signers of the Declaration of 

Independence. State-, county- and town-owned public beaches on Fire Island 

provide additional opportunities for recreation. The Sailors Haven and Watch 

Hill units depend on water travel, and generally are open from mid-May through 

mid-October each year. The Fire Island Light Station, the William Floyd Estate 

and the Fire Island Wilderness Visitor Center at Smith Point are accessible yearround, but operating hours vary by season.

State

The State fulfills its role as a recreation provider in a number of ways. It 

coordinates with the Federal Government, maintains its own recreation facilities, 

and works with localities in providing recreational amenities. The two state 

agencies that provide the most significant recreational opportunities are the 

Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation and the Department of 

Environmental Conservation. Also, the Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning and 

Policy Commission is a State-designated agency partner with jurisdiction within 

the Central Pine Barrens area.

Local

Local government provides the greatest number of recreation sites but not the 

largest acreage. Together, county, town, village governments and school districts 

operate about 44 percent of the more than 14,000 recreation sites and about 

7 percent of the recreational acreage in the state. The Suffolk County Parks 

Department manages more than 42,000 acres of parkland offering many leisure 

pursuits. The park system offers such popular activities as golfing, camping, 

horseback riding, swimming, hiking, fishing, boating, taking part in outer beach 

activities, or visiting local historic sites.

Local attitudes about the Complex vary, but most of the public is favorably 

disposed toward our mission of protecting and preserving wildlife and their 

habitats on Long Island. A sizeable segment of the public demonstrates their 

interest in protecting natural resources by visiting the refuges and other natural 

areas on Long Island. A vocal segment is also interested in limiting future 

development on the wildlands remaining on Long Island. Potentially controversial 

issues involve white-tailed deer, wildlife-dependent recreation, and mosquito 

control.

Socioeconomic Environment
Chapter 3

3-62 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Staffing and Budget

Highly variable annual budget appropriations commensurately affect our staffing 

levels. Table 3.6 summarizes our budget and staffing levels from 1997 to 2005. 

Fluctuations reflect funding for special projects, moving costs for new employees, 

or large equipment purchases. Most of the funding is earmarked; very little 

discretionary funding is available.

Refuge 

Complex 

Administration

Land Acquisition

Because of the limited number of undeveloped tracts in the vicinity of the refuges, 

we are not planning any major refuge expansions. Reduced land acquisition 

funding and escalating land prices have also made it difficult for the Service to 

undertake large preservation efforts, especially on Long Island. We will continue 

to consider minor acquisitions that lie next to existing refuges and are biologically 

important or provide connections with other lands protected by our conservation 

partners. We will deal with those situations as they arise. Additionally, our 

partnerships with organizations such as the Central Pine Barrens allow us to 

participate in initiatives to designate and preserve habitat and open space beyond 

the boundaries of our refuges.

Resource Protection and Visitor Safety

The nine refuges of the Complex are situated over approximately 100 miles of 

Long Island, stretching from Lido Beach easterly to Amagansett. The Complex 

headquarters at Wertheim is located in Suffolk County, which has a population of 

1.5 million people and lies within a 1 hour commute of New York City. Target Rock, 

Wertheim, Oyster Bay, Amagansett, and Morton refuges are open to the public, 

and average approximately 500,000 visitors annually. Conscience Point, Seatuck, 

Sayville, and Lido Beach refuges are closed to public visitation, but are accessible 

by special use permit for research and environmental education. Target Rock and 

Morton refuges are also part of the Federal Fee Demonstration Program.

Chapter 3

3-70 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

����������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������� �����������������������������

Refuge Complex

Administration

Staffing and

Budget

������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������ ����������������������������������������������������������������� ������ ��������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������

Land Acquisition

Resource

Protection and

Visitor Safety

Table 3.6. Budget and Staffing Levels between 1997 and 2005 

FY Operations Maintenance Full time Seasonal Term

1997 $700,300 $197,500 10 2 0 

1998 827,300 170,000 10 3 0

1999 770,800 101,900 12 1 0 

2000 761,800 254,000 12 3 0

2001 838,900 303,000 13 2 0 

2002 830,000 492,700 11 2 1

2003 1,044,287 557,249 12 0 0 

2004 1,054,592 156,593 12 0 0

2005 944,125 248,820 12 0 0 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3-63

Since 1999, the Complex law enforcement staff has been limited. Before the station 

law enforcement program consisted of two collateral duty officers. As a result 

of the minimal number of officers and the long distances between refuges, many 

violations go undetected or unreported. In the past 7 years, the Complex averaged 

more than 500 reported incidents and over 30 violation notices per year. Most 

of those typically involved trespassing, the illegal use of ATVs, unleashed dogs, 

dumping, or vandalism.

Because the Complex is close to densely populated areas, it is also susceptible to 

such criminal activities as burglary, prostitution, drug manufacturing and use, 

disorderly conduct, violence, and one case of assault on a federal officer, resisting 

arrest and evading police. Numerous building break-ins resulted in the theft of 

government property or vandalism. The Suffolk County Police Department made 

three felony arrests for burglary or the illegal use of a rifle at the Complex, and 

investigated three violent crimes. Wildlife-related violations include poaching, 

wildland arson, and disturbance of plants or animals. Poaching is becoming an 

increasing problem on several refuges.

The law enforcement staff also supports the biological and public use programs. 

Their duties include enforcing laws, collecting and counting entrance fees, 

contacting visitors, participating in the prescribed fire program, participating in 

public events, and counting wildlife. A station-by-station overview of the Complex 

Law Enforcement Program follows.

Amagansett

As a result of its unique double dune system, most of the refuge is closed to the 

public except by special use permit. Fishing the Atlantic Ocean from shore, which 

is open to the public, does occur. Trespassing into the closed area and dumping 

along the perimeter are the main law enforcement problems.

Conscience Point

This 60-acre refuge is located 5 miles west of Morton, and is closed to the public 

except by special use permit. Enforcement issues consist mainly of trespassing 

e.g. from waterfowl hunters on properties adjacent to the refuge, with occasional 

reports of poaching white-tailed deer.

Elizabeth A. Morton

Morton refuge, located 40 miles east of the Complex headquarters, is open to 

the public year-round and is part of the Federal Fee Demonstration Program. 

Fee compliance checks are done throughout the year, particularly during periods 

of heavy public use. As a result of the legally protected nesting piping plovers, 

terns, and ospreys, and the presence of other migrating shore birds, we close 

the peninsula to the public from April 1 to August 31. Trespassing by boaters is a 

continual problem in the summer. The vandalism of the refuge signs and building 

occasionally happens. The feeding of wildlife is becoming an increasing problem, 

as the wildlife lose their fear of humans, and as this activity has attracted Norway 

rats to the area.

Refuge Complex Administration
Chapter 3

3-64 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Lido Beach

This wildlife management area comprises mainly tidal wetland. It is closed to 

the public except by special use permit. Most violations involve trespassing and 

dumping.

Oyster Bay

This refuge, located on the north shore of Long Island, consists of 3,204 acres of 

bay bottom and tidal wetland, its boundary being mean high water. It is a prime 

area for wintering waterfowl. No waterfowl hunting is permitted at the refuge. 

Enforcement issues center around the construction of illegal structures, mainly 

docks and seawalls, along the shoreline. Illegal moorings on the refuge are also 

increasing.

Much staff time is spent researching the historical status of all structures on 

refuge property and reviewing permit applications for construction, repair, or 

replacement. Public use on the refuge includes boating, associated water sports 

and fishing, as well as environmental education and interpretation through The 

Waterfront Center and Friends of the Bay. Shell fishing does occur on the refuge, 

but is controlled by the Town of Oyster Bay as a result of the Deed of Gift.

Sayville

The FAA property adjacent to Sayville contains the largest population in the 

state of New York of sandplain gerardia, a federally listed endangered plant. The 

refuge is closed to the public except by special use permit. Most violations involve 

trespassing, particularly by local juveniles and the homeless.

Seatuck

Seatuck is closed to the public, except by special use permit. We do have an 

Ecological Services office and two residences inhabited by Service employees on 

this refuge. Most violations involve trespassing, dumping, and vandalism.

Target Rock

This refuge, located 45 miles west of Complex Headquarters, is open to the 

public year-round, and is part of the Federal Fee Demonstration Program. Law 

enforcement at this station includes intermittent fee compliance checks and regular 

patrols. Approximately half of the beachfront is closed from April 1 to August 31 to 

protect nesting bank swallows and shorebirds. Entry into closed areas, unleashed 

dogs, jogging, and violations of state fishing regulations occur occasionally. 

Vandalism and trespassing during closed hours are also occasional problems.

Wertheim

The Complex headquarters houses its main administrative and maintenance 

facilities. The brunt of the Complex law enforcement is conducted at this station. 

Illegal entry to refuge buildings has occurred in the past, resulting in the theft of 

thousands of dollars of government property. The installation of an alarm system, 

security lighting and fencing has alleviated most of the problems. Trespassing into 

closed areas and after refuge hours occurs frequently.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3-65

The Suffolk County Police Department has investigated three violent crimes on 

or close to the refuge in the past 17 years, and has interdicted prostitution at the 

fishing access site off Montauk Highway.

Evidence of white-tailed deer poaching is prominent, with one recent case resulting 

in an arrest and prosecution. The dumping of household trash and construction 

debris is a persistent problem, as is using ATVs illegally. Although on the decline, 

wildland arson has also been an ongoing problem. The vandalism of refuge signs 

and gates occurs sporadically.

Visitor Center/Headquarters

Wertheim serves as the headquarters for the Complex because of its central 

location among the refuges and its easy accessibility from major public roads. It is 

located in the Town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County, New York, approximately 45 

miles from New York City. 

The existing administrative office space for the Complex is a 1,200 sq.ft. converted 

hunting lodge built in the early 1900s. Two refuge staff first used it as office space 

in 1974. Since then, the Complex has grown to encompass 9 refuges, 12 permanent 

employees, and varying numbers of seasonal employees, student interns, 

volunteers and partners. The headquarters facility now consists of the original 

converted hunting lodge, two office trailers, and a small office in the maintenance 

shop. As our scope of operations and responsibility has increased, the present 

office space has become severely inadequate and unsafe to serve the public or the 

missions of the refuge, the Complex and the System.

In 1991, refuge staff developed a station management plan for the Complex 

approved by the Regional Office in 1992. Since that time, the location and timeline 

for building the facility changed due to funding. One of that plan’s management 

focus areas was the development of a visitor center at Wertheim. The refuge 

public use management plan also called for a visitor center. The proposal for a 

visitor center is an outgrowth of earlier efforts to provide the public with wildlifedependent recreational and educational opportunities throughout the year. The 

visitor center would also resolve the current, inadequate office space problems.

These are our goals for a Headquarters and Visitor Center at Wertheim.

1. Help meet the needs for wildlife-dependent recreation, environmental education and 

interpretive exhibits, programs, opportunities for residents and visitors to Long Island 

year-round in any weather.

2. Provide a safe and effective working environment for the staff, volunteers, seasonal 

interns and visitors at the Complex, and provide the public with direct access to 

Complex staff.

3. Provide ecotourism and economic benefits to the surrounding communities and Long 

Island.

4. Provide a high-quality, wildlife- and habitat-oriented Visitor Center for Long Island.

5. Illustrate the mission, activities, and achievements of the Fish and Wildlife Service, 

the National Wildlife Refuge System, and the Long Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex for the American public.

Refuge Complex Administration
Chapter 3

3-66 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Partnerships

Our staff is heavily invested in habitat restoration programs off-refuge that 

export the Service expertise to benefit wildlife across Long Island. Such activities 

include re-establishing native warm season grassland, improving beach habitat 

for colonial water birds, setting back the succession of red cedar from a unique 

maritime grassland, and improving salt marsh habitats. The Complex led the 

formation of the Long Island Wetland Restoration Initiative, which has partnered 

with more than 20 land-owning entities in restoring more than 2,000 acres of Long 

Island wetlands since 1997. In late 2000, the Complex entered into an Interagency 

Agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy to manage wildlands at 

nearby Brookhaven National Laboratory. That partnership furthers the Service 

mission by funding pine-barrens-related ecological studies and applying habitat 

management techniques that may also be applied to Complex refuges. Our staff 

also contributes technical expertise to the Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning 

and Policy Commission, a governmental agency aimed at protecting unique natural 

communities. See table 3.7 for a list of some of our partners.

Table 3.7. Current Partners*

BOCES (Nassau; E. Suffolk) National Audubon Society

Central Pine Barrens Commission National Park Service - Sagamore Hill Historic Site

Cornell Cooperative Extension The Nature Conservancy

Dowling College NY Fishing Tackle Trade Association

Ducks Unlimited NYSDEC

Elected Officials NYSDEC Forest Rangers

Environmental Defense Post Morrow Foundation

Foundation for Ecological Research Southampton College

Friends of the Bay Southampton Trail Preservation Soc

Friends of Wertheim SUNY Stony Brook

Greenbelt Trail Conference Suffolk County Parks

Long Beach School District Suffolk County YCC

Long Island Institute of Professional Studies Towns

Long Island Power Authority Trout Unlimited

Long Island Weed Management Area Trust for Public Lands 

Master Naturalist Society of Long Island U.S. Department of Energy - Brookhaven National Laboratory

Media Volunteer Fire Departments

Nassau County Parks

*Not a comprehensive list
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3-67

We work diligently to reach out to those who will take wildlife and natural resource 

conservation into the future: the children and young adults attending schools on 

Long Island. Our staff collaborates with the Long Island Institute of Professional 

Studies, providing workshops and presentations for teachers learning to bring 

environmental education into their classrooms. The Complex has given first-hand 

experience to local high school students who, in turn, conduct scientific research 

and monitoring on refuge lands. Many of our major outreach efforts involve staff 

participation and as many as 20 environmentally oriented entities. 

Since Friends of Wertheim incorporated in fall 1998, they have contributed their 

energies, advocacy, and innovative ideas for conservation, such as acquiring 

wildlands slated for development. The Friends are a non-profit advocacy group 

dedicated to supporting Complex goals in the community through public education 

and interpretation, project funding, and volunteer coordination. They are 

“dedicated to the enduring protection, management and appreciation of Wertheim 

refuge and its environs.”

Volunteers

The Complex-wide volunteer program is managed from the Wertheim 

headquarters. Approximately 100 volunteers are used regularly to assist in various 

duties: survey work, nesting structure upkeep and monitoring, facilities and trail 

maintenance, photography, and administrative assistance. Partnerships with 

the Suffolk County Department of Labor Youth Conservation Corps, programs 

like Americorps, and the Service SCEP and STEP programs offer resources 

for placing volunteers at the Complex. There is great interest and potential in 

expanding the volunteer program at the Complex.

Facilities and Maintenance

The facilities and maintenance center for the Complex is also at Wertheim. 

Complex staff offices are spread out across four buildings to meet minimum space 

requirements for each staff member. The main office, situated on the western shore 

of the Carmans River, was historically a seasonal hunting camp for the Wertheim 

family. That building is small, and contains only two private offices, a lunch room/

conference room and a reception area. To accommodate our staff, we purchased 

and converted two trailers into office space, without plumbing facilities, directly 

across from the main office in the late 1990s. The trailers provide office space for 

five employees as well as two Ducks Unlimited personnel. Our maintenance staff 

shares an office inside the maintenance shop building.

Facilities are present at Wertheim’s main office area, the Wellington property, 

and Seatuck, Target Rock, and Morton refuges. All four refuges were historically 

staffed, and therefore, contain offices, quarters and an array of outbuildings. Since 

the Complex was reorganized in the mid-1990s, only the Wertheim offices have 

been staffed. Unstaffed offices at Target Rock and Morton are used as visitor 

contact stations.

The Complex maintenance facility is located next to the office complex at 

Wertheim, and consists of three separate buildings: maintenance, wood shop, 

and storage. The maintenance building contains an office and three garage bays 

Refuge Complex Administration
Chapter 3

3-68 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

with a vehicle lift that allows most mechanical repairs. The wood shop building 

contains the woodworking shop with several carpentry tools. Most of the small 

engine equipment is contained within that building’s three bays. A small section 

of the wood shop building designated as the fire cache contains nearly all of the 

fire equipment for the Complex. Everything from interpretive brochures to old 

electronic equipment can be found in the walk-in attic upstairs in the wood shop. 

The wood shop is in poor shape and, as a result, some materials stored in it are 

getting damaged.

The Complex requires a rather extensive refuge quarters program. Quarters 

are a necessity given the extreme high cost of living on Long Island. Without 

the housing, employees could not afford to work at the Complex. Having FWS 

employees on the refuges 24 hours a day also provides security. The quarters 

are located at Wertheim, Seatuck, Target Rock and Morton. Refuge employees 

rent the houses located at Wertheim and Morton, while the Division of Law 

Enforcement employees rent the quarters at Seatuck and Target Rock.

The maintenance staff consists of three employees: an engineering equipment 

operator/maintenance leader, a carpenter, and a maintenance worker. Those 

employees are responsible for Complex-wide maintenance, and lend support to the 

biological, public use, and resource protection and visitor safety programs. Regular 

maintenance is required at the Wertheim, Morton and Target Rock refuges, which 

contain public restroom facilities and nature trails. The frequency of maintenance 

is contingent upon the seasons and the weather.

A building in the Wertheim maintenance facility.

M. Lin/USFWS
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3-69

Environmental Contaminants/Oil Spills

In 1990 and 1991, Service contaminant specialists investigated Wertheim, Oyster 

Bay, and Amagansett for the presence of environmental contaminants. They 

sampled sediment, surface water, and animal tissues. The sediments collected at 

Wertheim and Oyster Bay contained several heavy metals, including lead, zinc, 

cadmium, chromium, copper, manganese, mercury, and arsenic, at levels exceeding 

at least one of the concern levels reviewed. The studies concluded that there is a 

transport of contaminants onto Wertheim and Oyster Bay. At Wertheim, the lower 

reaches of Little Neck Run and Yaphank Creek and the Carmans River south from 

Montauk Highway to the Complex headquarters were identified as depositional 

areas with the greatest level of contamination.

The Complex biologist traditionally served as a field response coordinator for 

coastal oil spills in New York Harbor, the tidal portion of the Hudson River, and 

Long Island’s shoreline. That duty is now shared with staff from our Ecological 

Services New York Field Office. In 2000, the Complex received 150 reports of 

oil or gasoline spills. Most were minor, and minimally affected our federal trust 

resources.

Research and special use permits

Special use permits must be applied for in writing to the refuge manager. Each 

request is thoroughly reviewed. Most requests for academic research on the refuge 

are approved but each has special conditions assigned to it to ensure safe and 

compatible work. All research or studies require a final report of findings upon 

completion of the project. Institutions such as the State University of New York, 

Harvard University, and the U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division 

have performed diverse, impressive research at the Complex. Since 1999, studies 

have been undertaken on the effects of Open Marsh Water Management, juvenile 

American eel migration, salt marsh subsidence, maritime grassland community 

associations, non-target effects of mosquito control, and marsh mallow genetics.

Environmental educators may also request special use permits to use limited 

access areas within the Complex. We require them to submit a proposal which 

outlines their program objectives, activities conducted, and the areas to which 

they seek access. There is no charge assigned to educationally-based special 

use permits. Occasionally, we issue permits to nature photographers to enter 

closed areas. In turn, they traditionally have allowed us to use their images in 

our outreach materials, but that is not a requirement. There are also special use 

permits for commercial benefit, but only if it is compatible with the resource; in 

those instances a charge is assigned.

Refuge Complex Administration

Chapter 4

Management Direction and Implementation

Introduction

Relating Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

General Refuge Managment

Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Implementation, Monitoring, and Revision











Green-winged teal

USFWS

This CCP includes an array of management actions that, in our professional 

judgement, work towards achieving the purposes of all the refuges in the Complex, 

the vision and goals for the Complex, and State and regional conservation plans. In 

our opinion, it will effectively address the key issues. We believe it is reasonable, 

feasible, and practicable.

In all program areas, this CCP will enhance the quality and sustainability of 

current resource programs, develop long-range and strategic step-down plans, 

promote partnerships, and preserve, manage, and restore habitat.

Introduction

Relating 

Goals, 

Objectives, 

and Strategies

Developing goals for the Complex was one of the first steps in our planning 

process. Those goals, common to all of the alternatives, are intentionally broad, 

descriptive statements of the desired future conditions for Complex lands. They 

articulate the principal elements of refuge purposes and our vision statement, 

and provide the foundation for developing specific management objectives. After 

developing our goals, we considered a wide range of possible management actions 

or strategies that could help us meet them. Then we began the process of creating 

alternatives. 

Essentially, objectives are incremental steps we take to achieve a goal, and they 

further define management targets in measurable terms. Objectives can often 

provide the basis for determining more detailed strategies, and monitoring and 

evaluating refuge management performance. For each objective, we developed 

strategies: specific actions, tools, techniques, or a combination of those that we 

may use to achieve the objective. We will use the objectives in this CCP in writing 

step-down plans, including habitat management plans. In the process of developing 

step-down plans, we may revise some of the strategies, but most will translate 

directly. We will measure our success by how well we achieve our objectives.

Unless otherwise noted, Complex staff will implement all of the actions described 

in this chapter, assuming that appropriate staffing is available. 

General 

Refuge 

Management

We primarily developed our management direction hierarchically from goals to 

objectives and strategies. However, we also found that there were many actions 

we wanted to highlight that either relate to multiple goals or represent general 

administrative or compliance activities. These are presented in this section.

Biological monitoring

The Complex is currently developing a Habitat Management Plan with other 

National Wildlife Refuges in Bird Conservation Region 30. The HMP will provide 

specific guidance for the implementation of management strategies such as 

invasive species control and habitat monitoring efforts.

General Refuge Management

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 4-1
Chapter 4

4-2 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Protecting amphibians and reptiles

At Wertheim, we will confirm the presence of the state-endangered mud turtle, and 

survey anurans under a region-wide protocol.

Managing for black duck and other wintering waterfowl

We manage the Big Fish Creek impoundment at Wertheim for waterfowl and 

shorebirds, and conduct waterfowl and shorebird surveys there. Because invasive 

species impact black ducks and other wintering waterfowl, we control common 

reed (Phragmites australis) with chemical and mechanical treatments, and limit 

mute swan populations by addling eggs. Two important factors in the overgrazing 

of the restoration plantings at Oyster Bay refuge were the small size of the planted 

areas and the low fencing used to exclude geese. At the nearby Beaver Dam Creek 

planting, fencing has successfully prevented overgrazing by geese in the areas 

planted in 2005 and 2006.

Water quality

We will continue to support the Friends of the Bay in monitoring water quality 

at Oyster Bay by providing and maintaining a Hydrolab® water quality surveyor. 

Receiving information from county and state workers, volunteers, legislators, and 

the general public will keep us apprised of water quality conditions.

We also monitor all dock structures on the refuge annually, and extensively review 

all special use permit requests according to our revised policy.

Protecting piping plover, roseate tern, and least tern

Piping plovers, which can be found breeding at the Complex, are federal-listed as 

threatened and state-listed as endangered. Roseate terns are federal- and statelisted as endangered. They feed and rest on the refuges during winter migration. 

Least terns, a state-listed threatened species, rest on refuge units while migrating 

in the winter.

We close sections of beach at the Morton and Target Rock refuges for the plover 

and tern nesting season. At Morton, we prohibit public access to the peninsula, 

and at Target Rock, we prohibit access to portions of beach. We enforce the 

closure at Morton with the daily presence of seasonal plover stewards and periodic 

patrols by a refuge officer. The plover stewards erect predator exclosures for 

piping plover and the least tern colony, monitor nesting success, and assess the 

relative abundance of potential predators. Parts of the Morton, Target Rock, and 

Amagansett refuges remain open during those beach closures. We install symbolic 

fencing to restrain public use on beaches above mean high tide line. We will install 

artificial nest structures for roseate terns at Morton.

To raise public awareness of threatened or endangered species and other species 

of concern, volunteers and seasonal staff meet and educate beach visitors; 

interpretive signs are available at Morton; and the public can participate in the 

beach clean-up program at Target Rock. At both refuges, signs and press releases 

inform the public about beach closures.
Establishing hunting and fishing opportunities

We evaluated and approved a controlled public deer hunt in an environmental 

assessment and through its public input. That hunt began at Wertheim in the fall 

2005. We will continue to evaluate the effectiveness of the hunt.

Fishing areas are available at Target Rock, Amagansett, Wertheim, Morton, and 

Oyster Bay. See table 3.5 for details, and map 4-1 for other public use opportunities 

available at the Complex.

Wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation

We will maintain existing opportunities in wildlife observation, photography, and 

interpretation as described in chapter 3. Cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, and 

non-motorized boating are activities that can help facilitate these priority public 

uses. For example, cross-country skis and snowshoes allow visitors to access 

existing trails at Wertheim, Morton, and Target Rock during the winter months 

when there is snow on the ground. Similarly, non-motorized boats allow visitors 

at Wertheim and Oyster Bay a means to engage in wildlife observation and other 

priority wildlife-dependent public uses in areas inaccessible by foot. Since skiing 

and snowshoeing are winter activities that require snow, there are fewer adverse 

impacts to the Complex’s species of concern compared to activities like jogging, 

bicycling, and horseback riding. See map 4-1 for other public use opportunities 

available at the Complex.

Maintenance Dredging

Maintenance dredging at Seatuck and Morton refuges provides boat access 

to navigable waters. Maintenance dredging is not a priority public use of the 

System. However, it does allow access for other priority public uses, including 

wildlife observation and photography. Refuge staff will evaluate all requests for 

maintenance dredging before allowing them on refuge property. No dredging 

project will be allowed if the refuge manager has not issued a special use permit 

(SUP), or if the refuge manager determines that dredging may adversely affect 

wildlife, wildlife habitat, on-going or planned refuge management activities, 

approved priority public uses, or public health and safety. We will also require any 

dredging project applicant to obtain all federal, state, and local permits applicable 

before we issue a SUP. 

Increasing opportunities for public stewardship and improving outreach

We will promote our existing partnerships, new partnerships, and volunteer 

opportunities. Those relationships are vital for success in managing all aspects 

of the refuge, from protecting land to managing habitat and species or providing 

wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Volunteers and partners have opportunities to lead interpretive tours, conduct 

teacher workshops, maintain trails, and update interpretive materials. Refer to 

chapter 3 for details, more volunteer opportunities, and how we maintain and 

improve our volunteer and partner relations. Table 3.7 lists many of our established 

partnerships.

General Refuge Management

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 4-3
We update elected officials, partners, and other agencies with what we are doing at 

the Complex. News releases, fact sheets, brochures, our website, and participating 

in local events all improve our outreach.

Land Acquisition

We will continue to acquire refuge inholdings within approved refuge boundaries 

as willing sellers become available. We will also continue to consider minor 

acquisitions adjacent to existing refuges that are biologically important or provide 

connections with other protected lands of our conservation partners, e.g. the FAA 

site adjacent to Sayville, the Shinnecock wetlands east of Wertheim, and Lloyd 

Harbor and the private beach at Target Rock. These situations will be handled on a 

case by case basis as they become available.

Chapter 4

4-4 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
General Refuge Management

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 4-5
Chapter 4

4-6 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Objective 1: White-tailed deer management

Within 10 years, reduce deer densities at Wertheim and Seatuck so that they do 

not exceed 20-30 deer/square mile. This will improve conditions for ground nesting 

birds by promoting forest regeneration and increasing vegetation diversity.

Rationale

Overabundant populations of white-tailed deer reduce forest regeneration, impact 

woody understories, eliminate many herbs, minimize plant diversity, and impact 

habitats for songbirds (Healy et al. 1997). The impacts of overabundant deer 

populations on public health and safety include tick-borne disease and vehicle 

collisions. The economic impacts of overabundant deer include negative effects on 

timber resources and ornamental and agricultural plantings (Woolf and Harder 

1979, Cypher and Cypher 1988). 

Six fenced deer exclosures at Wertheim help us evaluate forest regeneration 

in the absence of deer herbivory. Regeneration is important for the long-term 

resilience of a forest and for ground-nesting birds. We will continue to monitor deer 

populations and their effects on wildlife habitats at Wertheim and Seatuck refuges, 

and expand monitoring onto the remaining upland units of the Complex. We 

initiated a controlled public deer hunt at Wertheim in the 2005 deer hunting season, 

and will continue the annual deer cull at Seatuck as needed.

Strategies

• Manage deer populations exceeding 20–30 deer/square mile with lethal controls. 

• Implement improved public hunting programs at Wertheim; the only Complex unit 

sizeable enough to support such activities.

• Accurately estimate deer densities through the use of ground-based and aerial 

counts and establish monitoring plots to assess the effects of deer browsing on forest 

regeneration.

• Assess what ground-nesting bird species use forested habitat communities at the 

Complex and the current status of those species.

• Develop a monitoring regime to follow species response to deer management practices 

at Wertheim.

• Improve and extend fencing along the western refuge boundary at Seatuck.

Refuge Goals, 

Objectives, 

and Strategies

Goal 1.

Improve the 

biological diversity 

and integrity of 

upland cover types 

to sustain highquality habitat 

for migratory 

passerine birds.

The following goals, objectives, and strategies are designed to enhance the quality, 

effectiveness, and sustainability of our management priorities. They will increase 

our protection and management of endangered, threatened or other species of 

concern, including migratory wildlife. They will also increase the number and 

quality of opportunities for compatible, wildlife-dependent, public recreation, 

and allow the Complex to benefit from its proximity to New York City and urban 

communities.
Refuge Complex Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 4-7

• Encourage deer management programs on state lands in the immediate vicinity of 

refuges: e.g., Target Rock and Seatuck.

Objective 2: Invasive plant management

Within 5 years, complete mapping of upland invasive plant species including Asiatic 

bittersweet, black locust, Japanese barberry, Japanese honeysuckle, and multiflora 

rose, and develop stand-specific strategies for management. Within 10 years, 

implement the management strategies to treat 30% of the stands dominated by 

invasive species. 

Rationale

Invasive plants are nationally recognized as threats to ecosystems. We have kept 

strategic pristine areas such as forest interiors free of exotic plants by handpulling and applying an herbicide to cut stumps. In 2003, the Challenge Cost 

Share Program provided matching funds for controlling 4 acres of black locust at 

Conscience Point, 12 acres of Asiatic bittersweet and black locust at Wertheim, and 

2 acres of black locust at Seatuck. 

The Complex is a founding member of the Long Island Invasive Species 

Management Area. Networking with other members and attending periodic 

meetings has helped us recognize the most problematic species, develop mapping 

standards, prioritize treatment regimes, and prepare outreach materials. Our staff 

will continue to collaborate in both field projects and meetings. See goal 2, objective 

1 for information about controlling Phragmites.

Strategies

• Identify and map invasive plant locations and their approximate acreage at each refuge 

by 2010.

• Develop a treatment prioritization that accounts for the “invasability” of a species, 

resources at risk of invasion (e.g. federal-listed species), extent of spread, and ease of 

control.

Objective 3: Restore and maintain fire dependent native plant communities

By 2008, map vegetation communities that are fire-dependent, describe their 

current and future desired conditions, develop a strategy to restore and maintain 

these communities, and begin implementing the strategy.

Rationale

The Brookhaven Fire District has become more engaged with the refuge in 

participating in prescribed burns and discussing lesser impact wildfire suppression 

techniques. We will negotiate similar cooperative agreements with the other six 

Fire Districts that provide protection for the other refuges as time allows.

Fire is part of a natural process that shaped the North American landscape over 

thousands of years (Patterson and Sassman 1988), and is recognized as one of 

the primary historic disturbances on Long Island that contributed to controlling 

or influencing the structure and composition of native vegetative communities. 

Early- to mid-successional habitats in northeastern North America, such as 

pine barrens and maritime heath, developed over time on coastal areas from 
Chapter 4

4-8 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

southern Maine to the mid-Atlantic, as a result of infrequent natural fires, and 

frequent fires set by Native Americans (Patterson and Sassman 1988, Vickery 

and Dunwiddie 1997). More recently, however, humans have suppressed wildfires 

aggressively, particularly in densely populated areas. When fire is excluded from a 

fire-dependent ecosystem, the vegetation in those communities is either altered to 

favor species that dominate under longer disturbance intervals for that ecosystem, 

or the plant community may be completely converted to a non-fire-dependent type. 

Because the restoration of the influence of natural wildfires is often not possible to 

restore or maintain those communities, the fire period that supports them has to be 

determined, and then mimicked with prescribed fire. 

Prescribed fire is a management tool involving the closely controlled ignition, 

monitoring, and suppression of fire to attain a habitat goal. Prescribed fire has 

been used successfully on Long Island since the early 1990s to maintain and 

enhance woodlands, grasslands, and marshlands, including endangered firedependent plant communities. While ensuring public safety and minimizing habitat 

destruction and property damage will receive top priority, we will encourage Fire 

Departments to use Minimum Impact Suppression Techniques, which will allow 

fires to burn under certain conditions and extinguish them with minimal residual 

adverse effects on the environment.

Strategies

The primary purpose of using prescribed fire is to restore and maintain firedependent native plant communities. Thus, it is important to first have a precise 

vision of the historic fire regimes that shaped the native pine barrens and maritime 

grasslands in central and eastern Long Island, and the probable distribution of 

those habitat types on existing refuge lands.

• Determine the historic fire return interval, seasonality of natural fires, and fire 

intensity for pitch pine forest, hardwood forest, shrubland, and grassland communities 

(Jordan et al. 2003).

• Use fire history information, USDA soils databases for Long Island, and historical 

information on vegetation community distribution for Long Island to estimate 

the types and possible proportions of fire-dependent vegetation communities that 

historically existed at each refuge unit.

• Use that information as an “ecological roadmap” to evaluate maps of existing 

vegetation communities and soil types per refuge unit. Assign areas for restoration or 

maintenance of fire-dependent habitat types. Develop a “future conditions map.”

• Evaluate that future conditions map in light of constraints posed by adjacent private 

properties and Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) issues. Move target areas which may 

be subject to high intensity crown fires away from WUIs.

• Group target vegetation communities into logical burn units by fire regime. For 

example, group all areas scheduled for top-killing, high intensity fires, surface fires, of 

return interval 5 to 20 years into one burn unit. Likewise, group all areas scheduled 

for low-intensity, dormant season surface fires of return interval 2 to 10 years into a 

separate burn unit.
Refuge Complex Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 4-9

• Cooperate with local fire departments and partner agencies with regard to suppressing 

wildfires and supporting prescribed fires.

• Begin implementing prescribed fire and other associated treatments at a refuge level 

scale on the highest priority units and rotation.

• Conduct stand and fuel inventories for each refuge as a baseline for fire management 

treatments.

• Identify priority systems and units based on age class, stand condition, time since last 

fire, threatened and endangered species, etc.

• Develop an equipment cache adequate to support fire-related activities of Complex and 

Central Pine Barrens Commission partners. 

• Develop outreach programs to educate the public about fire issues.

Objective 4: Restore and enhance bird populations

Initiate a biological monitoring program that assesses bird populations and habitat 

conditions within upland cover types for the breeding and non-breeding seasons. 

By 2010 complete assessments on 50% of upland stands. 

Rationale

Rigorous, appropriate, and habitat-specific surveys and monitoring regimes 

for bird species need to be developed. We are primarily interested in enhancing 

breeding and non-breeding habitat community functions for migratory birds in 

forest, grassland, and beach strand communities. Analyzing data from breeding 

land bird surveys at Wertheim will focus our contribution to regional, national, 

and Bird Conservation Region 30 goals. We will also develop or adopt appropriate 

surveying and monitoring protocols for those species using habitats we have not 

previously assessed. 

Staff and volunteers perform surveys of breeding land birds and salt marsh 

birds at Wertheim, including salt marsh sharp-tailed sparrows and seaside 

sparrows, under a region-wide protocol. Those surveys provide an index of species 

occurrence, highlight areas used by declining species, and prove valuable in the 

analysis of regional breeding concentration areas.

We will apply the following strategies to each refuge as appropriate, depending on 

its habitats. 

Strategies

• Develop baseline surveying and monitoring regimes and adopt or develop protocols for 

the Complex’s habitat communities for breeding and non-breeding seasons and initiate 

the surveys.

• Analyze baseline data for each community and determine where to focus specifically 

designed monitoring efforts to help track changes in species/habitat communities. This 

may be on a particular species guild, bird species, or habitat community of concern 

which supports a group of species.
Chapter 4

4-10 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

• Determine what intervals we need for continued surveys on breeding land birds at 

Wertheim. Initially, surveys will focus on salt/brackish marsh and pitch pine-scrub oak 

habitat communities at Wertheim and Sayville. Additional surveys will take place at 

Seatuck as grassland area is expanded for rare and endangered plant and lepidopteron 

species.

• Initiate surveys at other refuges in the Complex where restoration, management, or 

public use occurs.

• Develop an atlas of lepidoptera and odonata for the Complex with the assistance of 

volunteers and interested associations like the Dragonfly Society of America.

• Continue to monitor forest regeneration plots at Wertheim and establish plots at 

Seatuck, which also has an overabundant deer population.

• Establish and maintain surveillance programs for forest pest species like the gypsy 

moth, emerald ash borer, orange-striped oakworm, and the Asian long-horned beetle. 

Objective 5: Increase grassland size to benefit nesting grassland birds

By 2010, expand the effective area of grasslands at Conscience Point, Seatuck, and 

Sayville to the minimum area required by Savannah, Vesper, and Grasshopper 

sparrows, Eastern Meadowlark, and Bobolink. Ensure that habitat conditions such 

as vegetation type and density, coverage of woody stems, perch availability etc., are 

suitable for use by these species.

Goal 2.

Restore the 

biological health 

of aquatic habitats 

to high-quality 

conditions on 

the Complex salt 

marshes, bays, 

tidal

Objective 1: Reduce Phragmites

By 2007, prevent the expansion of Phragmites australis and, by 2010, reduce its 

overall distribution to 75% of 2005 levels.

Rationale

The invasive plant common reed (Phragmites australis) has overtaken and 

dominated once-prized freshwater marsh communities throughout much of the 

coastal northeast. Compared to native marsh plants, Phragmites is of no food value 

and provides only limited cover for marsh-dwelling birds. The presence of such 

dense, monotypic growth severely impacts such species as American black duck 

(Audubon 2003), other dabbling ducks, least sandpiper, semipalmated sandpiper, 

willet, and great egret. This plant now dominates roughly 335 acres of coastal 

marsh at Wertheim. That acreage is greater than half of the marsh and virtually all 

the tidal-freshwater marsh at the refuge.

Aerial photography interpretations revealed that common reed at Wertheim 

increased from 155 acres in 1974 to 335 acres in 2000. It now dominates virtually all 

of the brackish intertidal marsh (Batcher 2003). To limit its spread, we work with 

the DEC to encourage permitting for the use of herbicides, mowing, burning, and 

manipulating water levels in Wertheim impoundments.

We initiated a control project at Wertheim’s Big Fish Creek impoundment in 2001, 

and expanded it in 2002 to the sub-impoundment nearby. The treatments included 

the application of the herbicide Rodeo® by a certified contractor and the prescribed 
Refuge Complex Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 4-11

burning or mowing of dead canes. That treatment regime is repeated annually 

for 3 to 4 years to improve its effectiveness. Approximately 45 acres are now 

free of common reed. We will continue to treat previously treated areas until our 

restoration objectives have been met, and in 2005 we spot treated the headwaters 

of Yaphank Creek and Little Neck Run, both at Wertheim refuge.

Strategies

• Use 2005 aerials to accurately identify and map Phragmites distribution at all refuge 

units by 2007.

• Develop a species specific treatment plan basing priorities on the resources at risk 

of invasion, and ease of control. At Wertheim, part of the treatment plan will involve 

restoring tidal inundation, therefore increasing salinity which discourages Phragmites 

growth.

• Implement a treatment plan that controls problematic invasive plants with hydrologic 

restoration, herbicide application, mechanical removal, and/or prescribed fire with the 

intent of re-establishing native plants. Such a treatment plan will help eradicate at least 

25 acres/year of invasive upland species, including at least 5 acres of invasive wetland 

plants. 

Objective 2: Enhance habitat conditions for salt marsh sharp-tailed sparrow 

and seaside sparrow

Improve habitat conditions for salt marsh sharp-tailed sparrow and seaside 

sparrow populations at Wertheim, Morton, Seatuck and Lido Beach through 

invasive species control (goal 2, objective 1).

Rationale

Since the 1930s, most of Long Island’s salt marshes have been ditched for mosquito 

control purposes (see goal 2, objective 3 for a more detailed discussion on mosquito 

control). The intent was to eliminate shallow ponds or pannes and other areas 

of standing water in which female mosquitoes deposit their eggs. The extensive 

network of parallel and grid ditches at the refuges in the Complex have effectively 

removed those aquatic features. Some bird, insect, mollusk, crustacean, and plant 

species flourish only in those communities. The bird species at highest risk that 

depend on this habitat community are the salt marsh sharp-tailed and seaside 

sparrows. However, it also provides high-quality feeding and resting habitat for 

many wading birds, shorebirds, and waterfowl. 

Saltmarsh sharp-tailed sparrows and seaside sparrows are high salt marsh 

specialists. Saltmarsh sharp-tailed sparrow is considered globally vulnerable 

to extinction and is a priority species for conservation and management. IUCN 

Red List has the species as globally vulnerable to extinction. Virtually the entire 

breeding population occurs in USFWS Region 5. Seaside sparrows have a much 

broader breeding range, but are listed as a Species of Special Concern in New 

York.

Strategies

• Collaborate with the New York Department of State, the New York Department of 

Environmental Conservation, The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited and others to 
Chapter 4

4-12 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

perform new tidal wetland mapping and digitizing to serve as a basis for management 

planning, trends analysis, monitoring baseline, and plan for sea-level rise.

• Assess the hydrologic condition of each salt/brackish marsh system at the Complex to 

determine the factors that altered the tidal exchange.

• Develop salt/brackish marsh restoration plans specific to each marsh system. The plans 

will outline the impacts that altered each marsh system and the methods to be utilized 

for restoration.

• Implement the restoration plan to restore 600 acres of salt/brackish marsh at the 

Complex by the year 2020.

• After we complete our evaluation of OMWM (see goal 2, objective 3) revise mosquito 

control practices within Wertheim and Seatuck to incorporate OMWM techniques, if 

appropriate.

Objective 3: Decrease insecticide use in marsh communities

By 2015, enhance the biotic integrity of salt and brackish marshes by decreasing 

the use of mosquito control chemicals at Wertheim, Seatuck and Lido Beach by 

75%.

Rationale

We are working with partners to reduce the amount of spraying on refuge 

lands and ensure activities are consistent with the Service’s interim and future 

mosquito control guidance. The Service’s interim mosquito Guidance (2005) states 

that “when necessary to protect human, wildlife, or domestic animal health, the 

Service will reduce mosquitoes associated health threats using an integrated 

pest management approach, including when practical compatible, non-pesticide 

actions that reduce mosquito production. Except in officially determined health 

emergencies, any procedure the Service uses to reduce mosquito production 

will meet compatibility requirements as found in 603 FW 2 and must give full 

consideration to the safety and integrity of non-target organisms and communities, 

including federally listed threatened and endangered species.”

Mosquito management is complicated because many refuges in the Complex are 

adjacent to residential communities where disease vector and nuisance issues 

are amplified. A conflict of interests arises between protecting public health and 

protecting and restoring the salt/brackish marsh community. Additionally, OMWM 

techniques are not favored by everybody because of their initial impact on existing 

wetlands.

Residents near refuges create pressure to manage mosquito populations. As a 

result, local governments spray areas of marsh both inside and outside refuge 

lands by helicopter during the spring-summer mosquito breeding season. The 

two compounds typically used are methoprene (Altosid®), a growth regulator, and 

Bacillus thuringiensis (Bti), a bacterial pathogen. Past sprayings occurred as 

often as weekly in August and September at Wertheim, Seatuck, and Lido Beach. 

More recently, refuge negotiations with local governments have reduced that 

spraying. 
Refuge Complex Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 4-13

Spraying larvicides may adversely affect non-target wildlife like fish, birds, 

reptiles, mollusks, and other insects. The long-term effects of those compounds 

on non-target salt marsh species are not fully known (Brown; date unknown). 

However, killing mosquito larvae can alter the benthic community and potentially 

impact the food base of marsh-dependent migratory birds. As a result, the future 

productivity of the birds may be reduced. In addition, low-flying helicopters have 

been observed disturbing nesting osprey, and may also stress less visible marshnesting birds. 

Mosquitoes serve as a valuable food source for many insect and bird species in the 

salt/brackish marsh community. Although we wish to eliminate mosquito spraying 

on refuges for the sake of wetlands and wildlife, we still recognize the need to 

protect public health. Therefore, when public health is at stake, we have authorized 

the use of an environmentally benign larvicide that specifically targets mosquito 

larvae. The use of larvicide is less damaging to the environment than adulticide. 

We need more information before implementing any new management strategies 

for controlling mosquitoes. We are assessing the results of an open marsh water 

management (OMWM) pilot study conducted at Wertheim and considering its 

potential as both a mosquito control mechanism and a wetlands restoration tool. We 

will also be evaluating the results of a 5-year region-wide OMWM study recently 

completed by the Service. We are sensitive to concerns about the health risks that 

mosquitoes pose, the impact of pesticides on water quality, habitats, and human 

health and the impact of OMWM techniques on the present marsh landscape. The 

results of the studies, public concerns, and any new information our biologists have 

gathered will guide our future mosquito and marsh management strategies.

Implementing OMWM techniques will reduce mosquito larvae numbers and 

decrease the risk to public health. However, OMWM does not eliminate all 

mosquitoes, so nuisance mosquitoes may persist, and it is also not favored by all. 

We do not support spraying for nuisance mosquitoes, because the cumulative 

negative impacts of the compound on the environment do not warrant its use.

Strategies

• Study and document the effects of larvicide on aquatic insects by comparing 

communities within sprayed and unsprayed marshes.

• Eliminate the routine spraying of mosquito larvicides. Revise special use permits to 

allow spraying on refuges only during public health emergencies and not for public 

health nuisances.

• Continue OMWM pilot restoration study at Wertheim.

• After evaluating the results of the OMWM study, explore the possibility of returning 

marshes back to “pre-ditching” state, with active and widespread creation of shallow 

ponds, pannes, and natural tidal creeks instead of ditches to substantially reduce 

mosquito population. 

• Develop and enhance outreach efforts for neighbors in mosquito-prone areas. Inform 

them of the impacts of mosquito spraying on non-target insects, mollusks, crustaceans, 
Chapter 4

4-14 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

fish, and birds As new information becomes available, we will educate neighbors about 

alternative control measures like OMWM.

Objective 4: Shoreline restoration

By 2012, where practical, restore shorelines of tidal rivers and creeks to native 

emergent vegetation and mud flats.

The zone between the aquatic environment and the adjoining upland is especially 

important for wildlife, given its diversity of plant cover and rich food resources. 

Unfortunately, those zones typically border rivers and bay shores, and therefore, 

are often human-altered sites such as bulkheads and dredge dumps. The strategies 

in this objective are intended to restore the habitat functions associated with such 

areas.

Strategies

• Remove the bulkheaded segments of shoreline on Wertheim’s Carmans River and 

Seatuck’s Champlin Creek. Grade upland to a 10:1 slope and establish native emergent 

plant communities.

• Control Phragmites along tributary creeks through hydrologic, chemical, and 

mechanical means.

• Remove deposits of dredged material to reclaim the former native emergent marsh at 

Seatuck.

Objective 5: Oyster Bay

Within 15 years, revise Oyster Bay policy to clarify the criteria for legal private 

structures and the refuge’s authority and responsibility over them. We will ensure 

that the policy addresses construction and expansion of un-permitted docks and 

other shoreline structures on refuge property and is also consistent with the 

intentions of the original deed, the Refuge Improvement Act, and other Service 

mandates.

Rationale

We continue to implement the 1989 decision document regarding private structures 

and dredging; work with the DEC and the ACOE to review construction and 

dredging projects; participate in the long-range planning coalition; and survey 

the refuge boundaries to minimize impacts on its aquatic habitats. We also have a 

MOU with the Friends of the Bay for monitoring water quality. The data collected 

by the organization will help with management decisions. We have also established 

partnerships with the Long Island Wetland Restoration Initiative, Ducks 

Unlimited, and others to restore wetlands and other habitats on Long Island for 

the benefit of wildlife.

Strategies

• Produce compatibility determinations for all private structures and activities in the 

refuge by year 5 (i.e., 5 years after plan approval).

• Inventory all private docks in the refuge and determine the legality of each by year 5.
Refuge Complex Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 4-15

• Inventory all moorings in the refuge and determine the legality of each by year 10.

• Inventory all other private structures in the refuge, including boat ramps and 

bulkheads, and determine the legality of each by year 10.

• Expand on the definition of each criterion from the 1989 Decision Document to clarify 

the policy for private structures by year 2. Incorporate that clarification into the Code 

of Federal Regulations under Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge.

• Work with the town to clarify all boundary issues, including the location of the corners 

and any private, pre-existing riparian rights by year 5.

• Work with the town, villages, and other pertinent entities to assess the current number 

of moorings and which entities are authorizing moorings in the refuge by year 5.

• Develop and finalize MOU with the town, villages, etc. by year 10.

• Develop outreach materials on the private structure policy in Oyster Bay by year 

3. Conduct briefings for all levels of elected officials and send a refuge letter to each 

landowner with property adjacent to the refuge, and to applicable realty offices.

• Remove all illegal structures, docks, and moorings from the refuge by year 15.

• Restore all intertidal areas that have been denuded of vegetation by year 15.

• Initiate the sensitive and controversial issue of moorings with the town, elected 

officials, etc. around year 5. Develop a MOU regarding the number, type, and location 

of moorings and the fee procedure and ownership associated with them.

• Work with DOI solicitor’s office and DOJ’s AUSA to develop a resolution regarding the 

Pascucci dock matter and serve the FWS letter by year 2.

• Complete the land transfer of the refuge beach property for the town wetland acreage 

by year 2.

Objective 6: Enhance brook trout

By 2015, survey the native sea-run brook trout population that exists in Yaphank 

Creek at Wertheim. Develop and implement habitat enhancement strategy to 

remove invasive vegetation and maintain water quality, working with off-refuge 

landowners within the watershed. Remove passage barriers such as LI Railroad 

culverts.

Rationale

Yaphank Creek at Wertheim refuge is recognized as one of the few locations 

on Long Island that supports a native population of sea-run brook trout. 

Organizations like Trout Unlimited have been charting trends in this population 

for several years, and have a great interest in its long-term well-being. To satisfy 

angler demand, the DEC stocks hatchery-raised rainbow and brown trout in the 

Carmans River several times each year. The stocked fish are part of a “put-andtake” fishery, whereby the fish are of “legal” size. 

We will continue to monitor the size, age, and geographic distribution of the native 

population at least once every 5 years and restore habitat degraded by Phragmites 
Chapter 4

4-16 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Objective 1: Sandplain gerardia

Maintain and enhance the existing sandplain gerardia population at Sayville FAA 

site. 

Rationale

Sandplain gerardia is a federal-listed endangered plant that ranges from northern 

Maryland through Cape Cod. On Long Island, it occurs at 11 sites, including 

Sayville and Conscience Point, although only five, including Sayville, are viewed 

as being viable over the long term. The native population Sayville constitutes by 

far the greatest number of plants of any site on Long Island. In contrast, seeds 

successfully sown at Conscience Point resulted in the germination of two plants in 

2003. Seatuck has soils similar to those on which sandplain gerardia thrives, and 

may constitute a suitable establishment site.

We will consider current and future access in order to protect plants from 

accidental harm from public.

More than 85 percent of the New York State population of federal-listed 

endangered sandplain gerardia grows at a 101-acre site adjacent to the Sayville 

Unit of Wertheim refuge. Although the Federal Aviation Administration owns that 

site, we assist The Nature Conservancy in managing it. It represents one of the top 

three most important populations of sandplain gerardia in the Northeast, and is 

quite possibly the most viable of the three.

Although we do not own that property, we will continue to assist TNC in its 

management. Refuge staff will mow the grassland at Sayville annually to 

discourage the growth of woody plants. We will also continue the translocation in 

plots at Conscience Point and Seatuck that we started in 2001 and evaluate the 

current and future access to the site to protect the plants from accidental harm 

from the public. We will collaborate with TNC and the DEC on periodic, prescribed 

burns at Sayville, Conscience Point, and Seatuck. Once the Sayville FAA site has 

been transferred to us, we will develop and implement a prescribed burn regime 

and remove the intruding, non-native vegetation. Our goal is to restore that site to 

its natural habitat.

Strategies

• Incorporate a tree/shrub clearing where necessary, and mowing/prescribed fire 

regimes that increase and maintain maritime grasslands on refuge units, representing 

a diversity of native grass and herb species.

• Protect the establishment sites from unwanted wildfires and soil-disturbing activities 

like unauthorized ATV use, excavations.

Goal 3.

Restore and 

increase the 

biological 

diversity and 

integrity of native 

grasslands to foster 

endangered plant 

recovery and the 

communities upon 

which they depend.

and mute swans along the shoreline of Yaphank Creek. We will also continue 

monitor the effects of stocking hatchery-reared brown and rainbow trout to ensure 

native brook trout populations are not put at risk. This will be accomplished with 

the assistance of FWS Fisheries, NOAA Fisheries, and the DEC. 
Refuge Complex Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 4-17

• Identify appropriate sites in these refuges for endangered plant establishment based 

on soils and dominant grassland vegetation.

• Coordinate establishment efforts with Recovery Team.

• Monitor the establishment plots for germination/survival rate each September.

Objective 2: Grasslands

Within 10 years, maintain adequate interspersion of successional stages and plant 

diversity within the Complex’s grasslands to maintain the State-listed rare plant 

and lepidopteron component.

Rationale

The maritime grasslands at Sayville and Conscience Point are considered globally 

rare (NYSDEC 2004), and support several species of grassland-dependent statelisted endangered or threatened plants and butterflies. The long-term viability of 

such communities depends upon active habitat management.

Strategies

• Implement a periodic monitoring program for state-listed plants and animals in 

collaboration with NY Natural Heritage Program.

• Treat invasive plants aggressively with herbicides, mowing, and/or prescribed fire to 

limit their spread.

• Clear areas of recently established (less than 20 years old) young pitch pine, pitch 

pine scrub oak woodlands, and scrub oak thickets, to allow for the reestablishment of 

maritime grassland habitats, and implement a 2- to 10-year, low-to-moderate intensity 

surface fire regime for grassland habitats (Jordan et al. 2003).

• Maintain areas of young pitch pine, pitch pine scrub oak woodlands, and scrub oak 

thickets by intermittent mowing combined with scorching moderate intensity surface 

fire about every 10 years (Jordan et al. 2003).

Goal 4.

Enhance the 

functionality of 

coastal strand 

habitats as they 

relate to beachnesting colonial 

water birds and 

shorebirds to meet 

optimal population 

levels.

Objective 1: Assess plover/tern breeding potential

Assess the condition of coastal strand communities and determine the number of 

piping plover, roseate tern, and least tern breeding pairs that can be supported at 

Morton, Target Rock, Amagansett, and Oyster Bay.

Rationale

Although nesting has not been observed at Target Rock, adjoining stretches of 

beach generally support 1 to 2 plover pairs annually. One nesting pair was observed 

at Amagansett in 2005. in 2006, 2 pairs of piping plover and 10 pairs of least tern 

nested at Amagansett; eight piping plover chicks and an unknown number of least 

terns fledged. Since 2003, NYSDEC have been monitoring nesting piping plover 

on the sound side of the wetland at Frost Creek, near Oyster Bay NWR, and at 

Center Island and Stehli Beach.
Chapter 4

4-18 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Strategies

• Assess habitat conditions for plovers and terns as well as the limiting factors affecting 

productive breeding seasons at the above refuge units with species experts and refuge 

staff.

• Determine an appropriate goal for the number of nesting pairs at each refuge.

• Identify limiting factors that may be influencing colonial water bird productivity.

• Develop cooperative agreements with partners and adjacent landowners. 

• Coordinate with NYSDEC to address piping plover at Oyster Bay.

Objective 2: Active management of habitat/predator/public use

Actively manage habitat, predators, and public use, where necessary, to improve 

nesting and foraging habitat conditions for piping plover and least tern. Establish 

breeding common terns by 2010 and roseate terns at Morton by 2020. 

Rationale

The level of nesting success by colonial water birds may be influenced by several 

factors, including the quality of nesting and foraging habitat, the degree of human 

activity, and the presence of predators. The habitat factors relate to the physical 

environment; its limitations will constrain any proposed modifications. Human use 

and predators can be managed by several means, depending on socially acceptable 

practices. 

Strategies

• Reduce the density of beach grass adjacent to current and future nesting areas on all 

refuge beaches.

• Create new intertidal foraging areas where foraging opportunities are limiting piping 

plover use.

• Assess red fox, raccoon, Norway rat, crow, and gull populations at each refuge, and 

develop a predator management plan in collaboration with NYSDEC and USDA 

Wildlife Services. We will continue to work with our partners, including the state, to 

address predator management on the Complex.

• Patrol nesting areas during the mid-May to late July peak breeding season to keep 

refuge visitors out of closed areas at Morton.

• Further restrict areas accessible by the beach-going public and/or limit the allowable 

range of human activities, including picnicking, canoe portaging, and beach driving.

• Manage dredge spoil and identify sediment sinks that adversely affect beach strand 

habitat.

• Initiate discussion or consultation with appropriate parties to mechanically modify 

beach habitat to create extensive shallows. Possible techniques may include 

manipulating dunes and beach grass to decrease hiding cover for predators and 
Refuge Complex Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 4-19

Objective 1: Visitor Service Plan

Within five years, develop and implement a Visitor Services Plan according to the 

Visitor Service Requirements. The plan will function as a step-down plan for this 

document and replace the outdated public use plan.

Rationale

More than 40 million people visit units of the Refuge System each year to enjoy 

a wide range of wildlife related opportunities; nearly 500,000 visit Long Island’s 

national wildlife refuges. As its organic law states, any recreational use on areas of 

the Refuge System must be compatible with the primary purpose(s) for which the 

area was acquired or established.

Strategies

• Within 2 years, formally evaluate the Complex visitor services program and wildlifedependent recreational opportunities.

• Within 4 years, conduct visitor surveys to aid in planning visitor services.

• Within 5 years, make management recommendations and incorporate them into a stepdown Visitor Services Plan for the management of the Complex wildlife-dependent 

public uses and related infrastructure.

• Add sales outlets at Wertheim and Morton.

Objective 2: Headquarters/Visitor Facility

Within 7 years, develop, implement and complete the design, construction, and 

staffing of an office headquarters and visitor facility.

Rationale

The existing administrative office space for the Complex is a converted hunting 

lodge of approximately 1,200 square feet constructed in the early 1900s. It was 

first used as office space by two refuge staff members in 1974. Since then, the 

scope of operation and responsibility has increased, and the Complex has grown to 

encompass nine refuge units, up to 12 permanent employees and varying numbers 

of seasonal employees, student interns, volunteers and partners. The headquarters 

facility now consists of the original converted hunting lodge, two office trailers, 

and three desks in the maintenance shop; however, there is only one restroom, 

located in the main building. The present office space is severely inadequate, not 

to mention unsafe, to serve the mission of the refuge, the Complex, the Refuge 

System, or the needs of the public.

Given the presence of more than 30 million residents and visitors to Long Island, a 

headquarters and visitor center is essential to achieving the mission of the Service, 

the Refuge System, and the Complex. A new visitor center for the Complex was 

most appropriately located at Wertheim because of its central location among the 

Goal 5.

Provide priority 

wildlife-dependent 

recreational 

and educational 

opportunities when 

compatible with 

the resource and 

available funding.

increase opportunities for overwash, and excavating shallow mud flat foraging areas for 

plover at Morton.
Chapter 4

4-20 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

refuge units, its larger size, and its accessibility by major roads. Of the nearly 

500,000 annual visitors to the Complex, more than 90,000 visited Wertheim in 2004. 

The Complex staff examined the potential for a visitor center on lands owned by 

other agencies. Those sites included the Southaven School, owned by the South 

Country School District, and the Robinson Duck Farm, owned by Suffolk County 

Parks. In both cases, the properties were not available for sale; therefore, they 

were eliminated from further consideration. 

In 2000 and 2001, the Service evaluated four alternatives for a visitor center/

staff office at Wertheim. An environmental assessment prepared in compliance 

with the NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations provided 

a description of the purpose and need for the project, a brief background, the 

features of each alternative, the affected environment, and the effects and 

consequences of each alternative.

The selected alternative in that EA was a 6 acre site and residence adjacent to 

Wertheim on its eastern boundary. Our Regional Director approved the EA in 

February 2001, with the selection based on factors that included lower costs, less 

disturbance to the resources, and a relatively shorter time frame to complete the 

project. However, that site is no longer favored. The location of the new site can be 

found on map 4-2, and an aerial photograph is available in appendix G. 

In our current analysis of site selection (see map 4-2) for the headquarters and 

visitor center, we applied this set of general criteria.

• Large enough site for all proposed facilities.

• On or easily accessible from Montauk Highway.

• Relatively close to the existing refuge entrance road to minimize additional costs and 

traffic impacts.

• Safe ingress/egress to the site for employees and visitors.

• Safe, adequate parking for employees and visitors.

• Located on refuge-owned property to improve the visibility of the Service and refuge, 

facilitate public contact, and eliminate the hassle of a difficult real estate market.

• Reasonable site development costs.

• Low ecological, cultural, and esthetic impacts.

The proposed visitor center will also serve as office space for refuge employees. 

This action will involve constructing a new building at Wertheim across the 

Carmans River from the present office site. See Appendix G, “Conceptual Plans” 

for perspectives and floor plans for the proposed facility and an aerial view of the 

site. The site will have to be cleared of approximately 9 acres of pioneer hardwood 

vegetation, as well as a 30-vehicle parking lot. The proposed site currently has no 

structures. We will construct the entrance road on existing refuge lands where 

it cannot be seen from Smith Road residences. The visitor center will include 

1,000 square feet of display area, an auditorium, classroom, and staff offices.
Refuge Complex Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 4-21
Chapter 4

4-22 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Telephone and electric utilities will be brought onto the site from Smith Road, 0.1 

miles distant. The public will gain access via the present refuge entrance at Smith 

Road, 0.3 miles south of Montauk Highway. The old office and the two office trailers 

now used as office space will be removed.

Access to the site by the public will remain as is. From the William Floyd Parkway 

or Montauk Highway, visitors will take Smith Road to the present refuge entrance. 

Smith Road is a secondary, neighborhood road. Visitors to the site will travel less 

than 0.3 miles on Smith Road until they enter the refuge, thus minimizing safety 

issues. Access for emergency responses by fire, medical and law enforcement 

agencies will still be available by all of the existing refuge entrances and fire roads. 

No government quarters will be located at the site of the proposed visitor center.

Visitors to the proposed visitor center will include students, natural resource 

groups, and members of the public interested in wildlife-dependent recreation, 

education, and interpretation. Refuge and visitor facility hours/days of operation 

and facility carrying capacity will be determined in consideration of wildlife/

habitat, local residents, and staff constraints. Current sites of access to the 

refuge will also remain in operation, including the White Oak Nature Trail, the 

fishing access site maintained by the DEC on Montauk Highway, and the Beaver 

Dam/Squassux Landing site maintained by the Town of Brookhaven and a local 

community group.

Environmental education and interpretation sites accessible at the center will 

include a 0.5 mile nature trail through a mixed hardwood forest and on an existing 

fire road to an observation platform for viewing the refuge impoundment. Visitors 

who wish to use the White Oak Nature Trail at the present headquarters will be 

routed back out to the present entrance road.

Strategies

• Within 1 year, plan for the construction, interpretive design, and staffing of a new 

Complex visitor center/headquarters at Wertheim. The plans for the structure will 

follow closely those for a similar facility at the Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex.

• Within 1 year, begin the permit application process necessary for building construction 

along the Carmans River.

• Within 1 year, update existing Project Identification Document to reflect changes in 

facility and site selection from the 2000 Draft Environmental Assessment.

• Within 1 year of funding, work with interpretive planners to finalize the conceptual 

design of interpretive exhibits including messages, types of exhibits, visitor flow 

patterns, visitor carrying capacity, etc.

• Within 4 years of funding, complete exterior and interior construction of facility; this 

includes utilities, access, linking to and updating the nature trail and trail guide.

• By the grand opening of the new facility, update Complex brochures and interpretive 

panels available at the information kiosk according to plans devised for the new facility.
Refuge Complex Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 4-23

• Coinciding with the grand opening of the visitor facility, staff it with an outdoor 

recreation planner, a volunteer coordinator, and a law enforcement officer, as well as 

volunteers.

• Update existing buildings and have additional staff dedicated to Morton and Target 

Rock on a seasonal basis.

• Work with the Town of Oyster Bay and the DEC to explore the possibility of a shared, 

staffed Oyster Bay office.

Objective 3: Public Access to Refuge Lands

Allow public access to Complex units to the extent it will not adversely impact 

Federal trust resources or compromise human safety. At least 90% of refuge 

visitors and neighbors will be able to explain the purpose of access restrictions. 

Visitors will also be able to support habitat conservation by conducting themselves 

according to “Leave No Trace” principles.

Rationale

Our primary responsibility is to protect wildlife and promote wildlife conservation. 

Some sensitive areas require us to restrict public access to minimize disturbance, 

especially during the nesting season. Beach areas for beach-dependent nesting 

birds are partially closed late spring and summer to public use each year. No 

matter the level of access granted, visitor safety and resource protection take 

priority over all other activities. We have set up facilities for public visitation, 

including parking, restrooms, information kiosk, nature trails and guides on three 

refuges: Wertheim, Target Rock and Morton. Oyster Bay and Amagansett are 

open to visitors, but lack onsite facilities.

We grant special use permits for access to closed areas and closed units for certain 

activities, including research and photography, on a case-by-case basis when the 

activity will benefit the Complex. Access to closed areas and units is also granted 

to certain partners involved in cooperative agreements and memorandums of 

understanding to protect resources or enhance habitat. 

Problems with trespassing, littering, and feeding wildlife on the refuges have 

become increasing problems in recent years. They adversely affect wildlife and 

their habitat and can pose a threat to public safety. 

Sunbathing and beach use at Amagansett and Morton are allowable activities.

Strategies

• Continue to provide access to Complex units via visitor facilities, permits, and 

agreements as noted above.

• Continue to impose seasonal restrictions for the protection of shorebird nesting areas.

• Within 5 years, develop and implement a plan for increased patrols of refuge units, 

including strengthening and formalizing partnerships with local authorities, DEC 

Conservation Officers, and NYS Forest Rangers.
Chapter 4

4-24 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

• Within 5 years, explore partnership with Long Beach School District, Nike 

Environmental Center, to provide facilities such as a boardwalk, and access to Lido 

Beach WMA for environmental education purposes.

• Within 15 years, provide access to the closed units of Seatuck, Sayville, and Conscience 

Point by exploring partnerships with the Towns of Islip and Southampton and 

other adjacent landownders, where access may involve our providing interpretive 

information kiosks and observation areas on properties adjacent to the refuges.

• Work with the Southampton Trails Preservation Society and other partners to explore 

the possibilty of opening and adding trails at Conscience Point. This must include 

detailing, inventorying, and mapping of sensitive habitats and species at the refuge 

to determine the appropriateness and compatibility of opening the refuge and adding 

trails.

Objective 4: Interpretation

Enhance interpretive opportunities at the Complex and update them according to 

the Visitor Services Plan. 90% of visitors will be able to identify the property as 

a national wildlife refuge and 80% will be able to identify at least one important 

Complex habitat type and relate its significance to migratory birds and other 

native wildlife.

Rationale

Interpretation is a priority public use in the Refuge System Improvement Act, and 

is one of the most important ways we can increase the visibility of the Complex, 

convey its mission, identify its significant contributions to wildlife conservation, 

and raise public understanding of the Service and its activities on Long Island. 

Recently, USFWS Region 5 identified “areas of emphasis” with regards to the six 

priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses for every refuge. The Long Island 

NWR Complex was identified for environmental education and interpretation. 

Thus, we will further consider this recognition as we implement the strategies of 

the CCP over the next 15 years.

Complex visitors often confuse us with county, state, or national parks. Many are 

unaware of the Refuge System and its scope, and most do not understand the 

importance of the Complex in the conservation of migratory birds and threatened 

or endangered species.

Proposed future programs will raise the visibility of the Service, the Refuge 

System, and the Complex through increased visitor contacts, onsite programs, and 

new and improved infrastructure. We want people to recognize that the Complex 

has as its priority managing a variety of habitats to benefit migratory birds, with 

particular emphasis on restoring habitat for threatened or endangered species.

Expanding our interpretation program will give visitors a better understanding of 

that contribution. For example, we will work more closely with the NPS Sagamore 

Hill National Historic Site and Fire Island National Seashore on interpretive 

programs and displays that mutually benefit our respective agencies, wildlife, and 

public use. 

We receive daily requests for guided interpretive programs. Although provisions 

for self-guided programs are available in an excellent nature trail guide and 
Refuge Complex Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 4-25

activity guides, most group leaders who request guided programs prefer not to 

lead a program themselves.

Strategies

• Continue to maintain and provide facilities and materials including nature trails and 

guides, interpretive kiosks, activities guides to facilitate interpretation at Wertheim, 

Target Rock and Morton.

• Maintain partnerships with environmental education organizations that regularly use 

the Complex nature trails.

• Maintain our relationship with the Long Island Visitors Bureau & Sports commission, 

and keep the Complex website up-to-date.

• Continue to provide support and guidance to the Friends of Wertheim Programs 

Committee.

• Within 5 years, with partners, develop a detailed interpretive program for the refuge 

that tiers to the Visitor Services Plan.

• Within 5 years and every 3 years thereafter, evaluate the Complex interpretation 

program and update facilities and information to reflect its Visitor Services Plan.

• Within 5 years, coordinate with the Town of Oyster Bay, Friends of the Bay, The 

Waterfront Center and the Theodore Roosevelt Audubon Bird Sanctuary to develop 

interpretive exhibits and programs for Oyster Bay.

• Within 7 years, work with the National Park Service Sagamore Hill National Historic 

Site to develop a trail and interpretive overlook at Oyster Bay adjoining that property.

• Within 5 years, explore partnership opportunities with the National Park Service 

Fire Island National Seashore that utilize the shared skills, resources, and facilities of 

our two agencies, and we will cooperate in their upcoming General Management Plan 

process.

• Within 3 years, formalize partnerships with local Audubon Society Chapters and other 

environmental organizations to provide guided interpretive programs at Wertheim, 

Target Rock, and Morton refuges.

• Within 10 years, develop and implement portable displays and compact discs about 

refuge units and their management.

• Within 10 years, re-evaluate and renovate trails to make barrier free, and develop selfguided interpretive signs, including at restoration sites.

• Work with local canoe/kayak vendors to develop an interpretive self-guided tour of the 

Carmans River with an accompanying brochure.

• Within 15 years, interpret Amagansett, Seatuck, Sayville, and Conscience Point by 

exploring partnerships with the Towns of Islip and Southampton and other adjacent 

landownders, wherein the Complex may provide interpretive information kiosks and/or 

observation areas on properties adjacent to the refuge.
Chapter 4

4-26 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

• Within 7 years, provide interpretation of all Complex units by constructing and 

maintaining a headquarters office/visitor facility that will host permanent and changing 

interpretive exhibits.

• Within 10 years, develop docent program with volunteers to staff visitor contact station 

at Morton and conduct interpretive programs.

• As funds allow, continue to hire and train student interns to provide guided 

interpretation to refuge visitors.

• In conjunction with the new visitor center, improve self-guided experience through 

thematic interpretive wayside exhibits on trails.

Objective 5: Wildlife Observation and Photography

Maintain the current wildlife observation and photography opportunities provided 

on the Complex. Provide an observation area at the Wertheim impoundment 

and explore partnerships with adjacent landowners of Seatuck, Sayville, and 

Conscience Point for possible observation areas on properties adjacent to the 

refuges. Ensure that 80% of adult visitors report they were satisfied with the 

Complex’s efforts to provide safe and accessible opportunities to observe and 

photograph wildlife. 

Rationale

Wildlife observation and photography are two of six priority public uses. Nassau 

and Suffolk counties contain hundreds of photography groups. We regularly 

receive requests for access to closed areas of the Complex, and issue special use 

permits on a case-by-case basis. Permission to use the images for refuge purposes 

is one requirement of those permits. The occasional photography workshops and 

birding programs that have been presented on Complex units open for public use 

have met with great success and large attendance. Enhancing those opportunities 

not only will serve to update the Complex library of images for outreach, 

educational, and historical purposes, but also will help build public understanding 

and support of Complex management. 

Strategies

• Continue to maintain observation and photography platforms and blinds along the 

Complex nature trails at Wertheim, Target Rock and Morton; maintain and update 

spotting scopes at Wertheim, Target Rock and Morton as needed.

• Within 3 years, develop a nature photography club that can provide annual wildlife 

photography workshops. Offer an annual Friends group-sponsored wildlife 

photography contest.

• Review SUP fee policy for commercial wildlife photography primarily on closed refuge 

property.

• Continue to issue special use permits on a case-by-case basis for nature photography of 

benefit to the resource.

• Formalize partnerships with environmental organizations to provide photography and 

birding programs at Complex units.
Refuge Complex Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 4-27

• Continue to support and provide guidance to the Friends of Wertheim Programs 

Committee.

• Within 10 years, develop portable photography blinds and implement a reservation 

system.

• Within 15 years, provide access to the closed units of Seatuck, Sayville, and Conscience 

Point by exploring partnerships with the Towns of Islip and Southampton and 

other adjacent landownders, where access may involve our providing interpretive 

information kiosks and observation areas on properties adjacent to the refuges.

Objective 6: Environmental Education

Provide opportunities for partner-led and self-guided environmental education 

programs on Complex lands.

Rationale

Our staff encounters high demand for guided school programs and in-classroom 

programs, especially for Wertheim and Morton. During the school year, we receive 

at least three requests per week for guided educational programs. Most educators 

or group leaders prefer not to guide their own programs related to environmental 

science. Although we have provided quality programs and materials to teachers 

and group leaders, comments from the public indicate improvements are needed. 

Strategies

• Continue to participate in and promote the Federal Junior Duck Stamp Program for 

New York State with Ducks Unlimited.

• Continue to issue fee waivers/special use permits to educational institutions for outdoor 

laboratory exercises.

• In conjunction with the new visitor center, develop and implement an outdoor 

classroom area at Wertheim adjacent to the new facility.

• Within 5 years, explore formalizing a partnership with Long Beach School 

District, Nike Environmental Center, to provide boardwalk facilities and access for 

environmental education purposes.

• Within 7 years, partner with local educational institutions to plan, develop, and 

implement teacher environmental education workshops utilizing Complex resources.

• Partner with local schools and other educational institutions to enhance utilization of 

Complex resources for environmental education.

• Partner with NGOs and academic institutions to develop a detailed, self-guided 

environmental education program for opened refuge units that tier to Visitor Servicess 

Plan.

• Within 5 years, develop a network of educators willing to assist in program/curriculum 

development for the Complex. This network would act as supporters of the Complex, 

advocates for environmental education, and as a liaison to the community.

• Develop/purchase educational materials/equipment for use by educational institutions.
Chapter 4

4-28 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

• Within 10 years, expand teacher workshops to Target Rock and Morton.

• Develop education kits for scout leaders to use in conducting education programs at the 

Complex. Encourage use of refuge by scouts to earn official badges.

• Participate in environmental education events-Nassau Boces, Town of Oyster Bay.

Objective 7: Fishing

Promote fishing opportunities at Complex units through partnership with the 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Suffolk and Nassau 

Counties, Town agencies and non-governmental organizations. We want 90% of 

partners and visitors, including those who visit our website, to be able to state that 

the Complex offers fishing on various units.

Rationale

Both freshwater and saltwater fishing opportunities are available at Wertheim 

and Oyster Bay, and saltwater fishing is available at Target Rock, Morton and 

Amagansett. Those units offer fishing from shore, although some fishing at 

Wertheim and Oyster Bay is restricted to boat access. Wertheim offers boat 

launching at the fishing access site on Montauk Highway, Route 27A/CR 80 for 

canoes and kayaks, and at Squassux Landing at the end of Beaver Dam Road in 

Brookhaven. Boat access at Oyster Bay is from town launches or from the Long 

Island Sound. Sportsmen and fish conservation groups including the New York 

Fishing Tackle Trade Association, Trout Unlimited, and the Suffolk Alliance of 

Sportsmen have shown considerable interest in improving fishing access at various 

Complex units, especially Wertheim. Over the past three years, interest has also 

improved in fishing workshops for nontraditional anglers, including kids and 

families.

Strategies

• formalize partnerships to promote fishing opportunities and habitat restoration 

projects on Complex units with state, county, town and non-government organizations. 

Promotion will include, but not be limited to, fishing events, media stories, and website 

information.

• Within 10 years, develop fish species and fishing regulation rack cards for use at 

Complex information kiosks and outreach packets.

• Within 3 years and each year thereafter, develop and implement a family fishing event 

for at least one Complex unit.

• Within 5 years, evaluate the opportunities on the Complex for nontraditional anglers, 

and make recommendations for improving access and opportunities as part of the 

Visitor Services Plan.

• Within 8 years, implement the fishing opportunity and access recommendations of the 

Visitor Services Plan. 
Refuge Complex Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 4-29

As a step-down from the Visitor Services Plan

• within 5 years make recommendations to improve fishing access/opportunities. 

Implement the plans recommendations within 8 years.

• Explore opportunity and evaluate sites to provide shore-based public fishing 

opportunities where compatible and feasible.

• Construct at least one “barrier free” fishing structure.

• Improve fishing access site(s) at Wertheim north of Montauk Highway in partnership 

with the DEC, NYFTTA, and NY Department of Transportation.

• Within 5 years, improve the fishing access site at the end of Beaver Dam Road in 

partnership with the Town of Brookhaven.

• Integrate NY Department of State report on the south shore estuary.

• Design and develop interpretive displays or kiosks at fishing locations that teach 

visitors about responsible fishing, sensitive habitats, and the importance of a healthy 

ecosystem of fish and their associated habitats.

Objective 8: Hunting

Provide “safe” hunting opportunities on Complex lands as part of the effective and 

efficient management of upland and wetland habitats. “Safe” hunting entails that 

the number of accidents and incidents related to hunting on the Complex are less 

than New York State’s average number of hunting-related accidents and incidents 

per year. 

Rationale

Hunting is one of our six priority public uses. Hunting can be used as a tool for 

managing wildlife, unless we determine that safety concerns or overriding resource 

concerns will make hunting incompatible.

Reasons for establishing a hunt program are to (1) maintain a diversity of habitats 

in the Complex capable of supporting a diversity and abundance of wildlife species 

and, (2) provide wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. The Service 

recognizes hunting as a healthy, traditional, outdoor pastime deeply rooted in our 

American heritage. When managed appropriately, hunting can instill a unique 

understanding and appreciation of wildlife, their behavior, and their habitat needs.

The draft policy for hunting on national wildlife refuges, issued in the Federal 

Register on January 16, 2001, describes a quality hunting experience. A quality 

hunting experience

(1) maximizes safety for hunters and other visitors; 

(2) encourages the highest standards of ethical behavior in taking or attempting to take 

wildlife; 

(3) is available to a broad spectrum of the hunting public; 

(4) contributes positively to or has no adverse effect on population management of resident 

or migratory species; 

(5) reflects positively on the individual refuge, the System, and the Service; 
Chapter 4

4-30 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

(6) provides hunters with un-crowded conditions by minimizing conflicts and competition 

among hunters; 

(7) provides reasonable challenges and opportunities for taking targeted species under the 

described harvest objective established by the hunting program; 

(8) minimizes the reliance on motorized vehicles and technology designed to increase the 

advantage of the hunter over wildlife; 

(9) minimizes habitat impacts; 

(10) creates minimal conflict with other priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses or 

Complex operations; and 

(11)incorporates a message of stewardship and conservation in hunting opportunities.

The refuge will provide additional public hunting with an emphasis on waterfowl 

(i.e., early season/September resident Canada goose) hunting opportunities. For 

waterfowl, this could occur along the refuge shoreline of Bellport Bay, west of the 

mouth of the Carmans River. At this location, hunters will be required to provide 

their own temporary blinds and remove them each day. We may also establish one 

or two resident Canada goose hunt blinds at Wertheim located near the Big Fish 

Creek Impoundment. See map 4-2 for the proposed location. The blinds will be 

adequately placed to ensure a safe, quality experience and reduce the incidence of 

waterfowl being displaced from the refuge, and will be located a sufficient distance 

from nature trails to avoid visitor conflicts. Priority access to the blinds will be 

granted to youth and mobility-impaired hunters. 

We are investigating the possibility of designing the blinds for multiple uses to 

include wildlife observation and photography.

The refuge will be closed to hunting except during specific “open” hunting dates 

between September 1 and September 30 established by annual rule. Hunting will 

occur on Wednesday and Saturday from one-half hour before sunrise until 12:00 

noon. We will randomly select hunters for the program by lottery. The program will 

initially accommodate two hunters at each blind. We will allow hunting dogs for the 

purpose of retrieving birds, but they must be under the control of their owners at 

all times. Use of hunting dogs must also comply with state regulations. 

We prepared a compatibility determination (included in appendix C of this 

document) that evaluated the compatibility of hunting with refuge purposes and 

the mission of the Refuge System.

Strategies

• Within 1 year, develop and begin to implement an outreach plan to educate the public 

and our partners about hunting on national wildlife refuges. Produce a Complex 

hunting brochure, including refuge regulations and maps and post similar information 

on the Complex website.

• Continue to inform the public and our partners about hunting on Complex units by 

personal communication, letters, press releases, and special events.
Refuge Complex Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 4-31

• Establish a monitoring protocol for evaluating the quality of the experience for hunters 

and non-hunters during various hunting seasons.

• Within 1 year, formalize partnerships with the DEC, as well as local Audubon Society 

chapters and sportsmen groups, to offer annual hunter education courses and hunter 

orientation programs for the Complex.

• Within 5 years, work with the DEC, DU, and other partners to promote current 

hunting programs for non-traditional sportsmen including women, youth, and disabled 

people.

• Within 5 years, work with partners to evaluate the feasibility of a limited duck hunt at 

Wertheim. Priority access will be granted to youth and disabled hunters.

• Within 5 years, work with the State/DU, towns, and other partners including adjacent 

landowners to resolve the issue of hunters on neigboring lands that come on Conscience 

Point refuge to retrieve waterfowl.

• Conduct routine law enforcement patrols of Complex lands both open and closed to 

hunting.

• Annually review the Hunt Plan and institute changes as appropriate to better meet 

management and safety goals.

• Identify dates when state- and federal-listed species are present to avoid take.

Goal 6. 

Communicate and 

collaborate with 

local communities 

and partners 

throughout Long 

Island to promote 

the National 

Wildlife Refuge 

System and the 

Complex. 

Objective 1: Outreach

Within 5 years, through community outreach, attain a 50% increase in the number 

of adults on Long Island that know the Complex exists and that it is part of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s national system of refuges. These adults will also 

be able to identify our management priorities for migratory bird conservation and 

threatened and endangered species.

Rationale

This objective aims at developing an effective outreach program targeted at Long 

Island communities whose residents may not be aware that a national wildlife 

refuge is nearby. It is particularly important that local residents understand, 

appreciate, and support the mission of the Refuge System and the unique 

contribution of the Complex to that mission. 

Strategies

• Maintain and regularly update contact information for partners, elected officials, the 

media, and the general public; keep the database current and user-friendly.

• Maintain refuge-specific fact sheets.

• Continue to inform refuge neighbors of refuge management activities via the website, 

press stories, and letters.
Chapter 4

4-32 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

• Utilize volunteers to participate in community events on Long Island and in New York 

City where effective outreach of Complex programs can occur.

• Regularly work with media representatives to form personal working relationships; 

within 3 years, work with FWS External Affairs office to ensure that 6 articles or radio 

or TV spots about the Complex appear in national media highlighting refuge resources, 

issues, and management.

• Regularly promote successes via events, project demonstrations, and media stories.

• Within 5 years, develop survey protocol to measure success with meeting this objective.

• Within 5 years, develop an outreach plan, as part of the Visitor Services Plan, to outline 

direction for promoting the National Wildlife Refuge System and the Complex, and 

keeping neighbors and partners up to date about current projects and proposals. The 

plan could include provisions for publishing a newsletter or a regular column in a widelyread publication; utilize volunteers, interns and the Friends group for publication. 

Outreach will focus on recognized days such as, but not limited to, International 

Migratory Bird Day, National Wildlife Refuge Week, and National Boating and Fishing 

Week, as well as seasonal “happenings” on Complex units. The plan should capitalize on 

the Complex’s proximity to the nation’s media capital, New York City.

• Within 2 years, develop and implement an annual volunteer recruitment, training, and 

appreciation/recognition events.

• Within 3 years, develop and implement procedures to offer refuge “behind the scenes” 

tours to the media, elected officials, and the general public.

• After the proposed headquarters and visitor center opens, develop and implement a 

video/DVD about the Complex.

• Outreach to local kayak rental and sporting entities to limit trespass and related 

problems at the refuges.

• Within 5 years, evaluate partnerships to identify those that will benefit from formal 

MOUs/MOAs or cooperative agreements. This will help identify mutal goals, cost 

sharing, technical exchange, and environmental education and interpretation 

opportunities.

• Establish joint programs with other visitor centers/community gathering places and 

partners to support mutual work in natural resources i.e. NPS, towns.

• Work with partners to highlight work and successes; use media links e.g., websites.

• Maintain cooperative agreement with Brookhaven Volunteer Fire Department.

• Partner with the Cornell Cooperative Extension to use the Complex units as sites for 

their Master Birder and Master Naturalist Programs.

• Within 7 years, initiate a Friends group for Morton and Target Rock. Expand 

outreach to ensure visitors become more aware of Friends groups and how they can 

join. Develop recruitment strategies with the regional Friends coordinator. Formally 

recognize the contributions of Friends groups. Provide office and retail space, with 

cooperating agreement, for Friends groups at the proposed headquarters/visitor 

center at Wertheim (see goal 5, objective 2). Inform Friends group membership of 

opportunities to participate in biological and public use opportunities. Increase staff 

involvement with Friends group and vice versa.

• Continue working closely with and supporting the Friends of Wertheim and attending 

their board meetings.

• Within 10 years, recruit Friends Groups and volunteers to host annual events at 

Morton, Wertheim, and Target Rock.
Refuge Funding Needs

Successful implementation of the CCP relies on our ability to secure funding, 

personnel, infrastructure, and other resources to accomplish the actions identified. 

The recommended projects and their recurring costs, such as staff salaries, are 

listed and prioritized in the Refuge Operations Needs System (RONS) database 

(appendix E). In this appendix, we also identify new projects that we will include in 

the RONS database with the next annual update. The source of funding for these 

projects and salaries primarily comes from Refuge Operations (1261) dollars. Also, 

included in appendix E are our maintenance funding needs.

Some of the projects may be eligible for funding from the Refuge Roads Program 

(RRP) under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), a 

relatively new source of funding for the Refuge System. Examples include refuge 

public use roads, parking lots, bridges, restrooms, and trails. These funds can also 

be used for interpretive enhancements associated with these projects, as long as 

the costs for the interpretive facilities do not exceed 5% of the project budget. RRP 

funds can be used as the non-Federal match for Federal Highway Administration 

(FHA) funds available through State Departments of Transportation. Refuges can 

also use appropriated Service funds as the non-Federal match for these funds as 

well. This matching ability can be used tofurther compatible city, county, and State 

transportation and transit funds for projects on or near the refuge.

Staffing the Complex

The staff at Wertheim refuge will continue to administer the Complex (see 

appendix F). We will always ensure that visitors have a safe visit, engage in 

approved compatible activities, and understand and adhere to refuge regulations. 

Those include maintaining refuge boundary signs and continuing to make visitor 

contacts and conduct outreach and law enforcement. If RONS funding is not 

available, we will continue to seek alternate means of accomplishing our projects: 

for example, through volunteers, challenge cost share grants or other partnership 

grants, and interns. See table 3.7 for a list of established partners.

Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and evaluating the implementation of this CCP will occur at two levels. 

The first level, which we refer to as implementation monitoring, responds to the 

question, “Did we do what we said we would do, when we said we would do it?”

The second level of monitoring, which we refer to as effectiveness monitoring, 

responds to the question, “Are actions we proposed effective in achieving the 

results we had hoped for?” Or, in other words, “Are the actions leading us toward 

our vision, goals, and objectives?” Effectiveness monitoring evaluates an individual 

action, a suite of actions, or an entire resource program. This approach is more 

analytical in evaluating management effects on species, populations, habitats, 

refuge visitors, ecosystem integrity, or the socio-economic environment. More 

often, the criteria to monitor and evaluate these management effects will be 

established in step-down, individual project, or cooperator plans, or through the 

research program. The Inventory and Monitoring Plan will be based on the needs 

and priorities identified in the HMP.

Implementation, 

Monitoring, and 

Revision

Implementation, Monitoring, and Revision

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 4-33
Chapter 4

4-34 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Adaptive Management

We will use a strategy of adaptive management to keep the CCP relevant and 

current through scientific research and management. We acknowledge that our 

information on species and ecosystems is incomplete, provisional, and subject to 

change as our knowledge base improves. The need for adaptive management is all 

the more compelling today.

“The earth’s ecosystems are being modified in new ways and at faster rates 

than at any other time in their nearly 4 billion year history. These new and 

rapid changes present significant challenges to our ability to predict the 

inherently uncertain responses and behaviors of ecosystems.” (Christensen, 

et al. 1996)

Objectives and strategies must be adaptable in responding to new information and 

spatial and temporal changes. We will continually evaluate management actions, 

both formally and informally, through monitoring and research to reconsider 

whether their original assumptions and predictions are still valid. In this way, 

management becomes an active process of learning what really works. It is 

important that the public understand and appreciate the adaptive nature of natural 

resource management.

The Refuge Manager is responsible for changing management actions if they do 

not produce the desired conditions. Significant changes may warrant additional 

NEPA analysis; minor changes will not, but will be documented in annual 

monitoring, project evaluation reports, or the Annual Refuge Narrative.

Plan Amendment and Revision

Periodic review of the CCP will be required to ensure that objectives are being 

met and management actions are being implemented. Ongoing monitoring and 

evaluation will be an important part of this process. Monitoring results or new 

information may indicate the need to change our strategies.

At a minimum, CCPs will be fully revised every 15 years. We will modify the 

CCP documents and associated management activities as needed, following the 

procedures outlined in Service policy and NEPA requirements. Minor revisions 

that meet the criteria for categorical exclusions (550 FW 3.3 C) will only require an 

Environmental Action Memorandum.
Glossary

Glossary

White-tailed deer are easily sighted at the Complex. Dense populations at the refuge have 

influenced the composition of plant communities.

John Mosesso, Jr./NBII

Glossary

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 1

accessibility: the state or quality of being easily 

approached or entered, particularly as it 

relates to complying with the Americans with 

Disabilities Act.

accessible facilities: structures accessible for 

most people with disabilities without assistance.

alternative: a reasonable way to fix an identified 

problem or satisfy a stated need (40 CFR 

1500.2). Alternatives are different means of 

accomplishing refuge purposes and goals, 

contributing to the System mission, and 

resolving issues. See management alternative.

anadromous: fish that spend a large proportion 

of their life cycle in the ocean and return to 

freshwater to breed.

angler: someone who fishes, primarily referring to 

fishing with hooks, and usually with no intent to 

sell.

anuran: or Salientian. Consists of frogs, toads and 

their close fossil relatives. 

appropriate use: a proposed or existing use on a 

refuge that meets at least one of the following 

three conditions: (1) the use is a wildlifedependent one; (2) the use contributes to 

fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the System 

mission, or goals or objectives described in 

a refuge management plan approved after 

October 9, 1997, the date the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act was signed 

into law; or (3) the use has been determined 

appropriate as specified in section 1.11 of that 

act.

approved acquisition boundary : a project 

boundary that the Director of the U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service approves upon completion of 

the planning and environmental compliance 

process. An approved acquisition boundary 

only designates those lands which the Service 

has authority to acquire or manage through 

various agreements. The approval of an 

acquisition boundary does not grant the Service 

jurisdiction or control over lands within the 

boundary, and it does not make lands within the 

refuge boundary part of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. Lands do not become part of 

the System until the Service buys them or they 

are placed under an agreement that provides 

for their management as part of the System.

aquatic: growing in, living in, or dependent upon 

water.

Area of Biological Significance (ABS): 

contiguous landscapes, typically defined by 

watersheds or other geomorphologic feature, 

containing trust species and other species and 

habitats of special concern.

aquatic: growing in, living in, or dependent upon 

water.

Bailey System: technique for mapping ecoregions 

developed by Robert G. Bailey of the United 

States Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service.

barrens: a colloquial name given to habitats 

with sparse vegetation or low agricultural 

productivity.

benthic: living at, in or associated with structures 

on the bottom of a body of water.

best management practices: land management 

practices that produce desired results (i.e., 

usually describing forestry or agricultural 

practices effective in reducing non-point source 

pollution, like reseeding skidder trails or not 

storing manure in a flood plain. In their broader 

sense, practices that benefit target species).

bight: a bend in a coast forming an open bay, or a 

bay formed by such a bend.

biological diversity or biodiversity: the variety of 

life and its processes and includes the variety of 

living organisms, the genetic differences among 

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.
Glossary

2 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Bird Conservation Area (BCA): The New York 

State Bird Conservation Area Program was 

established in 1997 to safeguard and enhance 

bird populations and their habitats on State 

lands and waters. To date, twenty-eight BCAs 

have been designated. For more information: 

http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/

wildlife/bca/

bird conservation region (BCR): ecologically 

distinct regions in North America with similar 

bird communities, habitats, and resource 

management issues (see http://www.nabcius.org/bcrs.html for more information).

breeding habitat: habitat used by migratory birds 

or other animals during the breeding season. 

buffer zones: protective land borders around 

critical habitats or water bodies that reduce 

runoff and nonpoint source pollution loading; 

areas created or sustained to lessen the 

negative effects of land development on animals 

and plants and their habitats.

candidate species: see Federally listed species.

canopy: the uppermost spreading branchy layer of 

a forest.

canopy dominants: the major trees whose 

branches make up the canopy of a forest.

Categorical Exclusion (CE, CX, CATEX, CATX): 

a category of actions that do not individually 

or cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment and have been found 

to have no such effect in procedures adopted 

by a Federal agency pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act.

cation exchange capacity: an indicator of soil 

fertility. It shows the soil’s ability to supply 

three important plant nutrients: calcium, 

magnesium and potassium. Any element with a 

positive charge is called a cation. 

Challenge Cost Share Program: a grant program 

administered by the USFWS providing 

matching funds for projects supporting natural 

resource education, management, restoration 

and protection on Service lands, other public 

lands and on private lands.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): a 

compilation of all regulations issued by the 

agencies of the Federal government. It may 

be searched over the Internet at Exit from 

EPA pages www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrtable-search.html. Title 40 of the CFR (“40 

CFR”) contains regulations governing the 

environment.

community type: a particular assemblage 

of plants and animals, named for the 

characteristic plants.

compatible use: an allowed use that will not 

materially interfere with, or detract from, 

purposes for which the unit was established 

(Service Manual 602 FW 1.4).

compatibility determination: a compatibility 

determination is required for a wildlifedependant recreational use or any other public 

use of a refuge. A compatible use is one which, 

in the sound professional judgement of the 

Refuge Manager, will not materially interfere 

with or detract from fulfillment of the Refuge 

System Mission or refuge purpose(s).

Complex or the Complex: see National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP): a 

document that describes the desired future 

conditions of the refuge and provides longrange guidance and management direction 

to accomplish the purposes of the refuge, 

contribute to the mission of the System, and 

meet other relevant mandates. See http://www.

fws.gov/northeast/planning/.

concern: see issue.

conservation: the management of natural 

resources to prevent loss or waste. 

Management actions may include preservation, 

restoration, and enhancement.

conservation easement: a legal agreement 

between a landowner and a land trust or 

government agency that permanently limits 
Glossary

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3

a property’s uses in order to protect its 

conservation values. A non-possessory interest 

in real property owned by another imposing 

limitations or affirmative obligations with 

the purpose of returning or protecting the 

property’s conservation values.

cool-season grass: introduced grass for crop and 

pastureland that grows in spring and fall and is 

dormant during hot summer months.

cooperative agreement: the legal instrument used 

when the principal purpose of the transaction 

is the transfer of money, property, services 

or anything of value to a recipient in order to 

accomplish a public purpose authorized by 

Federal statute and substantial involvement 

between the Service and the recipient is 

anticipated.

Coordination Areas: defined as a “wildlife 

management area that has been withdrawn 

from the public domain or acquired by the 

Federal Government and subsequently made 

available to a state by cooperative agreement 

between the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and 

the state fish and wildlife agency, pursuant 

to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

of March 10, 1934 or the Bankhead Jones 

Act.” See http://www.fws.gov/refuges/faqs/

CoordAreas.html.

cover types: a non-technical higher-level floristic 

and structural description of vegetation cover.

critical habitat: according to U.S. Federal law, 

the ecosystems upon which endangered and 

threatened species depend.

cultural resource inventory: a professionally 

conducted study designed to locate and 

evaluate evidence of cultural resources present 

within a defined geographic area. Inventories 

may involve various levels, including 

background literature search, comprehensive 

field examination to identify all exposed 

physical manifestations of cultural resources, 

or sample inventory to project site distribution 

and density over a larger area. Evaluation 

of identified cultural resources to determine 

eligibility for the National Register follows the 

criteria found in 36 CFR 60.4 (Service Manual 

614 FW 1.7).

degradation: the loss of native species and 

processes due to human activities such that only 

certain components of the original biodiversity 

persist, often including significantly altered 

natural communities.

Department of Environmental Conservation 

(DEC, NYSDEC): exists to “conserve, 

improve, and protect New York State’s natural 

resources and environment, and control water, 

land and air pollution, in order to enhance the 

health, safety and welfare of the people of the 

state and their overall economic and social well 

being.” See http://www.dec.state.ny.us/ for more 

information.

Department of the Interior: the nation’s 

principal conservation agency whose mission 

is to protect America’s treasures for future 

generations, provide access to our nation’s 

natural and cultural heritage, offer recreation 

opportunities, honor our trust responsibilities 

to American Indians and Alaska Natives and 

our responsibilities to island communities, 

conduct scientific research, provide wise 

stewardship of energy and mineral resources, 

foster sound use of land and water resources, 

and conserve and protect fish and wildlife. 

Interior is a large, decentralized agency with 

over 70,600 employees and 200,000 volunteers 

located at approximately 2,400 operating 

locations across the United States, Puerto Rico, 

U.S. territories, and freely associated states. 

See http://www.doi.gov/ for more information.

designated wilderness area: an area designated 

by Congress as part of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System (FWS Manual 610 FW 1.5 

draft). Also known as wilderness.

disturbance: any relatively discrete event in 

time that disrupts ecosystem, community, or 

population structure and changes resources, 

substrate availability, or the physical 

environment.

duff: An organic surface soil layer below the litter 

layer in which the original form of plant and 
Glossary

4 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

animal matter cannot be identified with the 

unaided eye.

easement: an agreement by which a landowner 

gives up or sells one of the rights on his/her 

property. For example, a landowner may donate 

a right of way across his/her property to allow 

community members access to a river. See also 

conservation easement. 

ecological processes: a complex mix of 

interactions among animals, plants, and their 

environment that ensures maintenance of 

an ecosystem’s full range of biodiversity. 

Examples include population and predatorprey dynamics, pollination and seed dispersal, 

nutrient cycling, migration and dispersal.

ecoregion: a territory defined by a combination 

of biological, social, and geographic criteria, 

rather than geopolitical considerations; 

generally, a system of related interconnected 

ecosystems.

ecosystem: a natural community of organisms 

interacting with its physical environment, 

regarded as a unit.

ecotourism: visits to an area that maintains 

and preserves natural resources as a basis 

for promoting its economic growth and 

development.

ecosystem approach: a way of looking at socioeconomic and environmental information based 

on ecosystem boundaries, rather than town, 

city, or county boundaries.

ecosystem-based management: an approach to 

making decisions based on the characteristics 

of the ecosystem in which a person or thing 

belongs. This concept takes into consideration 

interactions between the plants, animals, and 

physical characteristics of the environment 

when making decisions about land use or living 

resource issues.

emergent wetland: wetlands dominated by erect, 

rooted, herbaceous plants.

endangered species: a federally protected species 

which is in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range.

endemic: native to and found only in a particular 

region. See also indigenous species, also 

referred to as native.

environmental education (EE): education aimed 

at producing a citizenry that is knowledgeable 

concerning the biophysical environment and its 

associated problems, aware of how to help solve 

these problems, and motivated to work toward 

their solution (Stapp et al. 1969).

environmental health: the 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.

Environmental Assessment (EA): a concise 

public document, prepared in compliance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act, 

that briefly discusses the purpose and need 

for an action, alternatives to such action, and 

provides sufficient evidence and analysis of 

impacts to determine whether to prepare an 

environmental impact statement or finding of 

no significant impact.

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): a 

detailed written statement required by 

section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA, analyzing the 

environmental impacts of a proposed action, 

adverse effects of the project that cannot 

be avoided, alternative courses of action, 

short-tern uses of the environment versus 

the maintenance and enhancement of longterm productivity, and any irreversible and 

irretrievable commitment of resources.

estuaries: deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent 

tidal wetlands that are usually semi-enclosed 

by land but have open, partly obstructed, or 

sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which 

ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by 

freshwater runoff from the land.

estuarine wetlands: “The Estuarine system 

consists of deepwater tidal habitats and 

adjacent tidal wetlands that are usually 
Glossary

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 5

semi-enclosed by land but have open, partly 

obstructed, or sporadic access to the open 

ocean, and in which ocean water is at least 

occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from 

the land” (Cowardin et al. 1979.

eutrophication: the process of nutrient 

enrichment in aquatic ecosystems. In marine 

systems, eutrophication results principally from 

nitrogen inputs from human activities such as 

sewage disposal and fertilizer use. The addition 

of nitrogen to coastal waters stimulates algal 

blooms and growth of bacteria, can cause broad 

shifts in ecological communities, and contribute 

to anoxic events and fish kills.

exotic species: a species that is not native to an 

area and has been introduced intentionally 

or unintentionally by humans; not all exotics 

become successfully established. Also known as 

non-native species.

extirpated: no longer occurring in a given 

geographic area.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): The 

government agency responsible for air safety 

and operation of the air traffic control system. 

Visit http://www.faa.gov/ for more information.

Federal Fee Demonstration program: an 

experimental initiative that authorized the 

four federal land management agencies–the 

National Park Service, the Fish & Wildlife 

Service, the Bureau of Land Management 

and the U.S. Forest Service–to charge fees to 

visitors and keep the revenues for reinvestment 

into visitor facilities and services.

Federal land: public land owned by the Federal 

government, including lands such as National 

Forests, National Parks and National Wildlife 

Refuges.

Federally listed species or Federal-listed species: 

a species listed under the federal Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended, either as 

endangered, threatened or species at risk. 

Formerly known as candidate species.

Federal Register (FR): The official daily 

publication for rules, proposed rules, and 

notices of Federal agencies and organizations, 

as well as executive orders and other 

presidential documents. The Federal Register 

is published by the Office of the Federal 

Register, National Archives and Records 

Administration.

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI): a 

document prepared in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act, supported 

by an environmental assessment, that briefly 

presents why a Federal action will have no 

significant effect on the human environment and 

for which an environmental impact statement, 

therefore, will not be prepared.

fire regime: the characteristic frequency, intensity, 

and spatial distribution of natural fires within a 

given ecoregion or habitat.

fire return interval: the number of years between 

two successive fire events at a specific site or an 

area of a specified size.

floodplain: flat or nearly flat land that may be 

submerged by floodwaters; a plain built up 

or in the process of being built up by stream 

deposition.

flow regime: see hydrologic regime.

focus areas: within each Area of Biological 

Significance, focus areas further delineate 

concentrations or “hot spots” for species and 

habitats of special concern.

forb: a flowering plant, excluding grasses, sedges, 

and rushes, that does not have a woody stem 

and dies back to the ground at the end of the 

growing season.

fragmentation: the disruption of extensive 

habitats into isolated and small patches. 

Fragmentation has two negative components 

for biota: the loss of total habitat area; and, the 

creation of smaller, more isolated patches of 

habitat remaining.

fuel ladder: branches, shrubs, or an understory 

layer of trees, which allow a fire to spread from 

the ground to the canopy.
Glossary

6 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

fuel loading: adding to the amount of available 

and potentially combustible material, usually 

expressed as tons/acre.

fulling mill: a mill which undertakes the process 

of fulling. Fulling is the beating and cleaning of 

cloth in water to shrink the loose fibers of the 

cloth, making it a denser fabric.

gallinaceous: of or relating to the order 

galliformes. Galliformes is an order of birds 

which are usually terrestrial, ground-nesting, 

rather large and heavy-bodied, have short 

wings and legs, a large crop, and a muscular 

gizzard, and produce numerous eggs and 

precocial young. The order includes the 

pheasants, turkeys, grouse, partridges, quails, 

and related birds.

geographic information system (GIS): a 

computerized system used to compile, store, 

analyze and display geographically referenced 

information. Can be used to overlay information 

layers containing the distributions of a variety 

of biological and physical features.

global positioning system (GPS): A worldwide 

radio-navigation system that was developed 

by the U.S. Department of Defense. GPS 

provides highly accurate position and velocity 

information, on a continuous global basis to 

an unlimited number of users. The system 

is unaffected by weather and provides a 

worldwide common grid reference system. 

The GPS receiver automatically selects 

appropriate signals from the satellites in view 

and translates these into three-dimensional 

position, velocity, and time. System accuracy for 

civil users is 100 meters horizontally.

goal: descriptive, open-ended, and often broad 

statement of desired future conditions 

that conveys a purpose but does not define 

measurable units. 

grassland: a habitat type with landscapes 

dominated by grasses and with biodiversity 

characterized by species with wide 

distributions, communities being relatively 

resilient to short-term disturbances but not 

to prolonged, intensive burning or grazing. In 

such systems, larger vertebrates, birds, and 

invertebrates display extensive movement to 

track seasonal or patchy resources.

grist mill: a mill for grinding grain.

habitat: the place where a particular type of plant 

or animal lives. An organism’s habitat must 

provide all of the basic requirements for life 

and should be free of harmful contaminants.

habitat conservation: the protection of an animal 

or plant’s habitat to ensure that the use of that 

habitat by the animal or plant is not altered or 

reduced.

habitat fragmentation: breaking up of a specific 

habitat into smaller unconnected areas. A 

habitat area that is too small may not provide 

enough space to maintain a breeding population 

of the species in question.

habitat management plan (HMP): A site-specific 

wildlife habitat plan.

herbaceous: of, relating to, or having the 

characteristics of an herb; having little or no 

woody tissue.

herbivory: the loss of vegetation due to 

consumption by another organism.

historic conditions: the composition, structure 

and functioning of ecosystems resulting from 

natural processes that we believe, based on 

sound professional judgment, were present 

prior to substantial human-related changes to 

the landscape.

host plant: the plant used for food by a specific 

species. Butterflies typically lay their eggs on 

the host plant used by the caterpillar. A single 

species of butterfly may use one or several 

species of plants as host plants.

hydrologic regime: characteristic fluctuations in 

river flows. Also known as flow regime.

impoundment: a body of water, such as a pond, 

confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or other 

barrier, which is used to collect and store water 

for future use.
Glossary

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 7

indicator species: a species used as a gauge for 

the condition of a particular habitat, community, 

or ecosystem. A characteristic or surrogate 

species for a community or ecosystem.

indigenous species: a species that, other than as 

a result of introduction, historically occurred 

or currently occurs in a particular ecosystem. 

See also endemic. Also referred to as native

species.

interjurisdictional fish: populations of fish that 

are managed by two or more states or national 

or tribal governments because of the scope of 

their geographic distributions or migrations.

interpretive facilities: structures that provides 

information about an event, place or thing 

by a variety of means including printed 

materials, audiovisuals or multimedia materials. 

Examples of these would be kiosks which offer 

printed materials and audiovisuals, signs and 

trailheads.

interpretive materials: any tool used to provide or 

clarify information, explain events or things, or 

serve to increase awareness and understanding 

of the events or things. Examples of these 

would be: (1) printed materials such as 

brochures, maps or curriculum materials; 

(2) audio/visual materials such as videotapes, 

films, slides, or audio tapes; and (3) interactive 

multimedia materials, such as cd–rom and other 

computer technology.

invasability: the relative ability for an invasive 

species to negatively affect a given ecosystem. 

For example, an invasive plant like Asiatic 

bittersweet has high invasbility because it 

spreads rapidly, where black locust has low 

invasability because it spreads more slowly.

invasive species, invasive plants: non-native 

species which have been introduced into an 

ecosystem, and, because of their aggressive 

growth habits and lack of natural predators, 

displace native species. Invasive plants often 

spread from a single location, coalesce, and 

convert the native plant community into a 

uniform patch of invasive species. These 

invasive plant-dominated areas represent 

a much lower diversity of plant species and 

vegetation heights than would be found 

normally, and as such, are of reduced value 

to forest and grassland-dependent migratory 

birds.

invertebrate: any animal lacking a backbone or 

bony segment that encloses the central nerve 

cord.

issue: any unsettled matter that requires a 

management decision; e.g., a Service initiative, 

an opportunity, a management problem, a 

threat to the resources of the unit, a conflict in 

uses, a public concerns, or the presence of an 

undesirable resource condition. Issues should 

be documented, described, and analyzed in the 

CCP even if resolution cannot be accomplished 

during the planning process (Service Manual 

602 FW 1.4). Also referred to as concern.

Land Protection Plan (LPP): a document that 

identifies and prioritizes lands for potential 

Service acquisition from a willing seller, and 

also describes other methods of providing 

protection. Landowners within project 

boundaries will find this document, which is 

released with environmental assessments, most 

useful.

land trusts: private, nonprofit organizations 

dedicated to conserving land by purchasing 

land, receiving donations of lands, or accepting 

conservation easements from landowners.

Leave No Trace: “...to avoid or minimize 

impacts to natural area resources and help 

ensure a positive recreational experience for 

all visitors. America’s public lands are a finite 

resource whose social and ecological values 

are linked to the integrity of their natural 

conditions and processes. Land managers face 

a perennial struggle in their efforts to achieve 

an appropriate balance between the competing 

mandates to preserve natural and cultural 

resources and provide high quality recreational 

use. Visitor education designed to instill low 

impact ethics and skills is a critical management 

component and is seen as a light-handed 

approach that can reduce the need for more 
Glossary

8 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

direct and regulatory forms of management.” 

(Source: http://www.lnt.org/about/history.html)

lepidoptera: the insect order which includes 

butterflies and moths.

litter: the uppermost layer of organic debris 

on a forest floor, composed mainly of fresh 

or slightly decomposed leaves, bark, twigs, 

flowers, fruits, and other vegetable matter.

loafing: spending time in idleness.

local agencies: generally referring to municipal 

governments, regional planning commissions or 

conservation groups.

Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

(Complex or the Complex) : the internal 

Service administrative linking of Amagansett, 

Conscience Point, Morton, Oyster Bay, 

Seatuck, Target Rock, and Wertheim National 

Wildlife Refuges, along with Lido Beach 

Wildlife Management Area and the Sayville 

Unit. In this document, these are referred 

to as Amagansett, Conscience Point, Lido 

Beach, Morton, Oyster Bay, Seatuck, Sayville, 

Target Rock and Wertheim, i.e. without 

their associated designations. The Complex 

headquarters is located at Wertheim. Visit 

our web page at http://www.fws.gov/northeast/

longislandrefuges/. 

Long Island Wetland Restoration Initiative: 

partner agencies and organizations working 

together to restore tidal saltmarshes and 

native grassland habitat on Long Island. 

Visit http://nyfo.fws.gov/info/cdreports/

lifowetlandinitiative.pdf for more info.

long term protection: mechanisms such as fee 

title acquisition, conservation easements or 

binding agreements with landowners that 

ensure land use and land management practices 

will remain compatible with maintenance of the 

species population at the site.

management alternative: a set of objectives 

and the strategies needed to accomplish each 

objective (Service Manual 602 FW 1.4).

management plan: a plan that guides future land 

management practices on a tract of land. In the 

context of this environmental impact statement, 

management plans would be designed to 

produce additional wildlife habitat along 

with the primary products, such as timber or 

agricultural crops.

management strategy: a general approach 

to meet unit objectives. A strategy may be 

broad, or it may be detailed enough to guide 

implementation through specific actions, tasks, 

and projects (Service Manual 602 FW 1.4).

mean high tide line: the average of all high tide 

lines.

mean high water: The average height of the high 

waters over a 19 year period.

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU): An 

agreement between agencies that states specific 

measures the agency will follow to accomplish a 

large or complex project.

mission statement: succinct statement of the 

unit’s purpose and reason for being.

mitigation: actions taken to compensate for the 

negative effects of a particular project. Fore 

example, wetland mitigation usually takes 

the form of restoration or enhancement of a 

previously damaged wetland or creation of a 

new wetland.

moraine: a mass or ridge of earth scraped by ice 

and deposited at the edge of a glacier.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS): in the United States, national 

standards for the ambient concentrations in 

air of different air pollutants (e.g. ozone and 

particulate matter) designed to protect human 

health and welfare. Visit http://epa.gov/ttn/

naaqs/.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA): requires all agencies, including the 

Service, to examine the environmental impacts 

of their actions, incorporate environmental 

information, and use public parti- cipation in 

the planning and implementation of all actions. 
Glossary

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 9

Federal agencies must integrate NEPA with 

other planning requirements, and prepare 

appropriate NEPA documents to facilitate 

better environmental decision making (40 CFR 

1500).

National Wildlife Refuge (refuge or NWR): a 

designated area of land, water, or an interest 

in land or water within the System, but does 

not include Coordination Areas. See National 

Wildlife Refuge System.

National Wildlife Refuge Complex: an internal 

Service administrative linking of refuge 

units closely related by their purposes, goals, 

ecosystem, or geopolitical boundaries. See 

also Long Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex.

National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge 

System or System): all lands and waters and 

interests therein administered by the Service 

as wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges, wildlife 

management areas, waterfowl production 

areas, and other areas for the protection and 

conservation of fish and wildlife, including those 

that are threatened with extinction. 

“The mission of the System is to administer a 

national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management and, where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and 

plant resources and their habitats within the 

United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans.”

Also see National Wildlife Refuge and http://

www.fws.gov/refuges/.

native: see endemic and indigenous species.

native plant: a plant that has grown in the region 

since the last glaciation and occurred before 

European settlement.

neotropical migrant: birds, bats, or invertebrates 

that seasonally migrate between the neararctic 

and neotropics.

non-consumptive, wildlife-oriented recreation: 

wildlife observation and photography and 

environmental education and interpretation.

non-native species: see exotic species.

non-point source pollution: nutrients or toxic 

substances that enter water from dispersed and 

uncontrolled sites.

nontraditional angler: an individual or group 

not typically engaged in angling e.g, women, 

children, families. Also see angler.

Notice of Intent (NOI): a notice that an 

environmental impact statement will be 

prepared and considered. Published in the 

Federal Register.

objective: an objective is a concise statement 

of what we want to achieve, how much we 

want to achieve, when and where we want to 

achieve it, and who is responsible for the work. 

Objectives derive from goals and provide the 

basis for determining management strategies, 

monitoring refuge accomplishments, and 

evaluating the success of the strategies. Also, 

see unit objective.

occurrence site: a discrete area where a 

population of a rare species lives or a rare plant 

community type grows.

odonata: the insect order which includes 

dragonflies and damselflies. 

old field: an area that was formerly cultivated or 

grazed and where woody vegetation has begun 

to invade. If left undisturbed, it will eventually 

succeed into a forest. Many old fields occur at 

sites marginally suitable for crop production or 

pasturing. Old fields are highly variable in the 

Northeast, depending on soil, land use history, 

and management.

Open Marsh Water Management (OMWM): 

a form of mosquito control that intends to 

eliminate the use of larvicides, by providing 

access for predaceous salt marsh fishes to 

mosquito breeding sites. Some techniques 

include filling ditches and creating tidal 

channels and open water ponds that simulate 

pre-ditching hydrologic features. OMWM 

techniques can potentially improve conditions 

for shorebirds and waterfowl within degraded 

salt marshes.
Glossary

10 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

overbrowsing: the elimination of forest 

undergrowth by herbivores.

overstory: see canopy.

palustrine wetlands: “The Palustrine system 

includes all nontidal wetlands dominated by 

trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent 

mosses or lichens, and all such wetlands that 

occur in tidal areas where salinity due to 

ocean–derived salts is below 0%” (Cowardin et 

al. 1979).

pannes: Calcareous, wet, interdunal depressions 

that form near the water table in interdunal 

areas.

Partners for Wildlife Program: a voluntary 

habitat restoration program undertaken by the 

Service in cooperation with other governmental 

agencies, public and private organizations, and 

private landowners to improve and protect 

fish and wildlife habitat on private lands while 

leaving the land in private ownership.

partnership: a contract or agreement entered 

into by two or more individuals, groups of 

individuals, organizations or agencies in which 

each agrees to furnish a part of the capital or 

some in–kind service, i.e., labor, for a mutually 

beneficial enterprise.

passerine: a bird of the order passeriformes, 

also known as “perching birds,” or, less 

accurately, as “songbirds.” Of the 10,000 or 

so extant species of birds, over half (~5,300) 

are perching birds. Perching birds have a 

worldwide distribution, with representatives on 

all continents except Antarctica, and reaching 

their greatest diversity in the tropics.

Payments in Lieu of Taxes: Federal payments 

to local governments that help offset losses in 

property taxes due to nontaxable Federal lands 

within their boundaries (cf: Refuge Revenue 

Sharing Act of 1935, Chapter One, Legal 

Context).

piscivorous: feeding on fish.

planning area: a planning area may include lands 

outside existing planning unit boundaries 

currently studied for inclusion in the System 

and/or partnership planning efforts. It may also 

include watersheds or ecosystems that affect 

the planning unit. 

planning team: planning teams are 

interdisciplinary in membership and function. 

Teams generally consist of a Planning Team 

Leader; Refuge Manager and staff biologists; 

and other appropriate specialists including 

social scientists, ecologists, and recreation 

specialists. Team members may come from our 

other programs and other Federal, Tribal, and 

State natural resource agencies. The planning 

team prepares the CCP.

population monitoring: assessments of the 

characteristics of populations to ascertain their 

status and establish trends related to their 

abundance, condition, distribution, or other 

characteristics.

prescribed fire: application of fire to wildland 

fuels, either by natural or intentional ignition, 

to achieve identified land use objectives (FWS 

Manual 621 FW 1.7).

priority public use: a compatible wildlifedependent recreational use of a refuge 

involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation 

and photography, or environmental education 

and interpretation.

private land: land that is owned by a private 

individual, group of individuals, or non– 

governmental organization.

private landowner: any individual, group of 

individuals or non–governmental organization 

that owns land.

private organization: any non–governmental 

organization.

proposed wilderness: an area of the Refuge 

System that the secretary of the Interior has 

recommended to the President for inclusion in 

the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

See designated wilderness area.

protection: mechanisms such as fee title 

acquisition, conservation easements or binding 
Glossary

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 11

agreements with landowners that ensure land 

use and land management practices will remain 

compatible with maintenance of the species 

population at the site.

public: individuals, organizations, and groups; 

officials of Federal, State, and local government 

agencies; Indian tribes; and foreign nations. It 

may include anyone outside the core planning 

team. It includes those who may or may not 

have indicated an interest in the Service issues 

and those who do or do not realize that Service 

decisions may affect them.

public involvement: a process that offers 

impacted and interested individuals and 

organizations an opportunity to become 

informed about, and to express their opinions 

on Service actions and policies. In the process, 

these views are studied thoroughly and 

thoughtful consideration of public views is given 

in shaping decisions for refuge management.

public land: land that is owned by the local, state, 

or Federal government.

purposes of the refuge: the purposes specified in 

or derived from the law, proclamation, executive 

order, agreement, public land order, donation 

document, or administrative memorandum 

establishing, authorizing, or expanding a 

refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit.

rare species: species identified for special 

management emphasis because of their 

uncommon occurrence within a location. 

Record of Decision (ROD): a concise public 

document prepared by the Federal agency, 

pursuant to NEPA, that contains a statement 

of the decision, identification of all alternatives 

considered, identification of the environmentally 

preferable alternative, a statement as to 

whether all practical means to avoid or minimize 

environmental harm from the alternative 

selected have been adopted–and if not, why 

they were not–and a summary of monitoring 

and enforcement where applicable for any 

mitigation.

refuge goals: descriptive, open-ended and often 

broad statements of desired future conditions 

that convey a purpose but do not define 

measurable units.

refuge lands: those lands in which the Service 

holds full interest in fee title, or partial interest 

such as easements. 

restoration: management of a disturbed or 

degraded habitat that results in the recovery 

of its original state. For example, restoration 

may involve planting native grasses and forbs, 

removing shrubs, prescribed burning, or 

reestablishing habitat for native plants and 

animals on degraded grassland.

return intervals: see fire return intervals.

riparian: the interface between freshwater 

habitats and the terrestrial landscape.

riverine: within the active channel of a river or 

stream.

robust emergents: vigorous wetland vegetation 

which protrudes above the water level e.g. 

Phragmites, cattail.

runoff: water from rain, melted snow, or 

agricultural or landscape irrigation that flows 

over the land surface into a water body.

sandplain grassland: dry grassland that has 

resisted succession due to fire, wind, grazing, 

mowing, or salt spray. Characterized by thin, 

acidic, nutrient-poor soils over deep sand 

deposits, sandplains primarily occur on the 

coast and off-coast islands, or inland, where 

glaciers or rivers have deposited sands.

site improvement: any activity that changes the 

condition of an existing site to better interpret 

events, places, or things related to a refuge 

e.g., improving safety and access, replacing 

non-native with native plants, refurbishing 

footbridges and trailways, and renovating or 

expanding exhibits.

sound professional judgement: an opinion or 

management decision formed by an individual, 

or group of individuals, whose work requires 

the application of theories, concepts, principles, 

and methodologies typically acquired through 
Glossary

12 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

completion of a bachelor’s or post-bachelor’s 

degree program. Such judgments often require 

consistent exercise of discretion.

Species of Special Concern: a species not on 

the federal list of threatened or endangered 

species, but a species for which the Service or 

one of its partners has concerns.

state-listed species: threatened or endangered 

species within a state’s borders that may or 

may not also be federal-listed species. Also see 

federally listed species.

step-down management plans: plans that 

describe management strategies and 

implementation schedules. A series of plans 

dealing with specific management subjects; 

for example, croplands, wilderness, and fire 

(Service Manual 602 FW 1.4).

stopover habitat: habitat used during bird 

migration for rest and feeding.

strand habitat: a beach or very shallow coastal 

area dominated by shoreline processes, 

particularly wave processes.

strategy: a specific action, tool or technique or 

combination of actions, tools, and techniques 

used to meet unit objectives.

succession: natural, sequential change of species 

composition of a community in a given area.

surfactant: a material that facilitates and 

accentuates the emulsifying, wetting and other 

surface-modifying properties of substances.

symbolic fencing: Signs, rope, or any other 

markers that can be used to convey to the 

public that they are not permitted in a 

particular area.

threatened species: a federally protected species 

which is likely to become an endangered species 

within the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range.

tributary: a stream or river that flows into a larger 

stream, river or lake.

trust resource: a resource held in trust for the 

people by the government through law or 

administrative act. A federal trust resource is 

one for which trust responsibility is given, in 

part, to the federal government through federal 

legislation or administrative act. Generally, 

federal trust resources are those considered 

to be of national or international importance 

no matter where they occur. Trust resources 

include, but are not limited to, endangered 

species and migratory birds and fish that 

regularly move across state lines. In addition 

to species, trust resources also include cultural 

resources protected through federal historic 

preservation laws and nationally important 

and threatened habitats–notably wetlands, 

navigable waters, and public lands such as state 

parks and national wildlife refuges.

trust species: see trust resource.

turbidity: refers to the extent to which light 

penetrates a body of water. Turbid waters have 

reduced light penetration, and therefore do not 

generally support net growth of photo-synthetic 

organisms.

understory: Plants such as small trees, bushes, 

herbs and grasses that grow below the canopy

level in a forest.

unfragmented habitat: large blocks of unbroken 

habitat of a particular type.

unit objective: desired conditions which must 

be accomplished to realize a desired outcome. 

Objectives are the basis for determining 

management strategies, monitoring refuge 

accomplishments, and measuring the success 

of the strategies. Objectives should be 

attainable and time-specific and may be stated 

quantitatively or qualitatively (Service Manual 

602 FW 1.4).

upland: any land that is not wetland.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE): 

military and civilian engineers, scientists and 

other specialists that handle engineering and 

environmental matters. The USACE is made 

up of approximately 34,600 Civilian and 650 

military members. Responsibilities include 
Glossary

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 13

planning, designing, building and operating 

water resources and other civil works projects; 

designing and managing the construction 

of military facilities for the Army and Air 

Force; and providing design and construction 

management support for other Defense and 

federal agencies. Visit http://www.usace.army.

mil/ for more information.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS, 

FWS): The Service helps protect a healthy 

environment for people, fish and wildlife, 

and helps Americans conserve and enjoy the 

outdoors and our living treasures. The Service’s 

major responsibilities are for migratory birds, 

endangered species, certain marine mammals, 

and freshwater and anadromous fish. Our 

mission is “...working with others to conserve, 

protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and 

their habitats for the continuing benefit of the 

American people.” Visit http://www.fws.gov/

who/ for info.

vector-borne disease: disease that results from 

an infection transmitted to humans and other 

animals by blood-feeding arthropods, such as 

mosquitoes, ticks, and fleas e.g., dengue fever, 

viral encephalitis, lyme disease, and malaria.

vernal pool: depressions holding water for a 

temporary period in the spring and used by a 

variety of amphibians for egg laying.

vision statement: concise statement of what the 

planning unit could be, or what we could do, 

in the next 10 to 15 years, based primarily 

upon the System mission and specific refuge 

purposes, and other relevant mandates. 

warm-season grass: native prairie grass that puts 

on the most growth during summer when coolseason grasses are dormant.

watchable wildlife: all wildlife is watchable. A 

watchable wildlife program is a strategy to help 

maintain viable populations of all native fish 

and wildlife species by building an effective, 

well-informed constituency for conservation. 

Watchable wildlife programs are tools by which 

wildlife conservation goals can be met while 

at the same time fulfilling public demand for 

wildlife recreational activities. These activities 

do not include sport hunting, trapping or sport 

fishing.

watershed: the geographic area within which 

water drains into a particular river, stream or 

body of water. A watershed includes both the 

land and the body of water into which the land 

drains.

wetlands: The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s 

definition of wetlands states that “Wetlands 

are lands transitional between terrestrial 

and aquatic systems where the water table 

is usually at or near the surface or the land 

is covered by shallow water” (Cowardin et al 

1979).

wilderness: see designated wilderness area.

wildlife management: the practice of 

manipulating wildlife populations, either 

directly through regulating the numbers, 

ages, and sex ratios harvested, or indirectly 

by providing favorable habitat conditions and 

alleviating limiting factors. 

Wildlife Management Area (WMA): land owned 

by New York State under the control and 

management of the DEC’s Division of Fish, 

Wildlife and Marine Resources. These lands 

have been acquired primarily for the production 

and use of wildlife.

wildlife-dependent recreational use: a use of 

a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, or environmental 

education and interpretation. These uses are 

the six priority general public uses of the 

Refuge System as established in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act. 

wildlife-oriented recreation: recreational 

activities in which wildlife is the focus of the 

experience. For example, sport hunting and 

fishing, and plant and animal viewing and 

photography.

Bibliography

Bibliography

Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge

© John and Karen Hollingsworth

Bibliography

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 1

Allan, B.F., F. Keesing, and R.S. Ostfeld. 2003. 

Effect of forest fragmentation on Lyme disease 

risk. Conservation Biology 17:267-272.

Anderson, J. F., and L. A. Magnarelli. 1993. Natural 

history of Borrelia burgdorferi in vectors and 

vertebrate hosts. Pages 11–24 in H.S. Ginsberg, 

editor. Ecology and environmental management 

of Lyme disease. Rutgers University Press, 

New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Atlantic Coast Joint Venture. 2002. http://www.acjv.

org/.

Audubon. 2003. Cooling the hotspots: protecting 

America’s birds, wildlife, and natural heritage 

from invasive species. Audubon Report. 

Available at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/species/

nuis_exo/final%20invasives%20report.pdf.

Augustine, D.J. and P.A. Jordan. 1998. Predictors 

of white-tailed deer grazing intensity in 

fragmented deciduous forests. J. Wildl. 

Manage. 62:1076-1085.

Bailey, R.G. 1995. Descriptions of the Ecoregions 

of the United States. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. Misc. Publication 

1391.

Barbour, M.G. and W.D. Billings. 1988. North 

American Terrestrial Vegetation. Cambridge 

University Press.

Barbour, M. G., J. H. Burk, W. D. Pitts, F. S. 

Gillium, and M. K. Schwartz. 1999. Terrestrial 

Plant Ecology, Third Edition. Benjamin 

Cummings, an imprint of Addison Wesley 

Longman, Inc..

Batcher, M.S. 2003. Analysis of historic aerial 

photographs to assess changes in cover 

and distribution of Phragmites australis at 

Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge, New York. 

Prepared for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 

Long Island Refuge Complex.

Blodget, B.G. 1978. The effect of off-road vehicles 

on least terns and other shorebirds. M.S. 

Thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 

MA.

Borg, P, and E. Shreeve. 1974. The Carmans River 

Story: A Natural and Human History. Privately 

printed.

Bouffard, S.H. 1982. Wildlife values versus human 

recreation: Ruby Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge. Trans. North American Wildlife and 

Natural Resources Conference 47:553-558.

Boyd, H.P. 1991. A Field Guide to the Pine Barrens 

of New Jersey. Plexus Publishing, Inc., 

Medford, NJ. 

Boyd, H.P. and P.E. Marucci. 1979. Arthropods of 

the Pine Barrens. In Pine Barrens Ecosystem 

and Landscape. Rutgers University Press, NJ. 

Bratton, S.P. 1979. Impacts of white-tailed deer on 

the vegetation of Cades Cove, Great Smokey 

Mountains National Park. Proceedings of 

the Annual Conference of the Southeastern 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

33:305-312.

Brown, C.L. and R. Clark. 1968. Observations 

of dredging and dissolved oxygen in a tidal 

waterway. Water Resources Res. 4:1381-1384.

Brown, S.E. and G.R. Parker. 1997. Impact of 

white-tailed deer on forest communities within 

Brown County State Park, Indiana. Proc. 

Indiana Acad. Sci. 106:39-51.

Brown, Wennona. Date unavailable. Mosquito 

larvicide non-target organism effects. Prepared 

for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Maryland 

Co-Op Unit.

Burger, J. 1981. The effect of human activity on 

birds at a coastal bay. Biological Conservation. 

21:231-241.

Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human activity on 

shorebirds in two coastal bays in northeastern 

United States. Environmental Conservation. 

13:123-130.

Burger, J. and M. Gochfeld. 1991. The Common 

Tern: Its Breeding Biology and Social Behavior. 

Columbia University Press, NY. 
Bibliography

2 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Carreker, R.G. 1985. Habitat suitability index 

models: least tern. FWS/OBS- Biological 

Report 82 (10.103).

Casey, D. and D. Hein. 1983. Effects of heavy 

browsing on a bird community in deciduous 

forest. J. Wildl. Manage. 47:829-836.

Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning and Policy 

Commission. 1996. Comprehensive Land Use 

Plan, Volume 2. http://pb.state.ny.us/cpb_plan_

vol2/vol2_chapter04.htm. 

Citizens Campaign for the Environment. 

2003. Carmans River Study. http://www.

citizenscampaign.org/campaigns/brookhaven.

htm.

Clapp, R. B., D. Morgan-Jacobs and R.C. Banks. 

1983. Marine Birds of the Southeastern 

United States and Gulf of Mexico; Part III, 

Charadriiformes. USFWS FWS/OBS.

Connecticut Department of Environmental 

Protection, Wildlife Bureau. 1988. Publication 

DR-11.

Conover, M.R. 1991. Herbivory by Canada geese: 

Diet selection and its effect on lawns. Ecological 

Applications 1:231-36.

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, E.T. LaRoe. 

1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater 

habitats of the United States. U. S. Department 

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Washington, D.C. Jamestown, ND: Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. http://

www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998/classwet/

classwet.htm. (Version 04DEC98).

Crow, G.E. 1982. New England’s Rare, Threatened, 

and Endangered Plants. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service, Northeast 

Region.

Cypher, B.L. and E.A. Cypher. 1988. Ecology 

and Management of White-tailed Deer in 

Northeaster Coastal Habitats: A Synthesis of 

the Literature Pertinent to National Wildlife 

Refuges from Maine to Virginia. USFWS 

Biological Report 88(15).

Debano, L F., D. G. Neary, and P. F. Folliot. 1998. 

Fire’s Effects on Ecosystems. John Wiley and 

Sons, Inc., New York. 

DeCalesta, D.S. 1994. Effects of white-tailed 

deer on songbirds within managed forests in 

Pennsylvania. J. Wildl. Manage. 58(4):711-718.

DeCalesta, D. 1997. Deer and ecosystem 

management. Pages 267-279 in W.J. McShea, 

H.B. Underwood, and J.H. Rappole, editors. 

The science of overabundance: deer ecology 

and population management. Smithsonian 

Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Degroot, R.C., T.W. Popham, L.R. Gjovik, and 

T. Forehand. 1979. Distribution gradients 

of arsenic, copper, and chromium around 

preservative-treated wooden stakes. J. Env. 

Qual. 8:39-41. 

Decker, D.J., and K.G. Purdy. 1988. Toward a 

concept of wildlife acceptance capacity in 

wildlife management. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 58(4):711-718.

Dindal, D.L. 1979. Soil Arthropod 

Microcommunities of the Pine Barrens. In Pine 

Barrens Ecosystem and Landscape. Rutgers 

University Press, NJ.

Dunn, E.H. and D.J. Agro. 1995. Black Tern 

(Chlidonias Niger). In A. Poole and F. Gill 

(eds.) The Birds of North America, 147. Acad. 

Nat. Sci. Phil. and Amer. Ornith. Union, 

Washington D.C. 

Dunn Engineering Associates. 1999. Traffic impact 

study for the Home Depot, Shirley, New York. 

Dunn Engineering Associates. Westhampton 

Beach, New York.

Edington, J.M and M.A. Edington. 1986. Ecology, 

recreation and tourism. Cambridge University 

Press. Cambridge, U.K..

Eltringham, S.K. 1984. Wildlife and Tourism. John 

Wiley and Sons, New York.

Final Compatability Policy Pursuant to the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 
Bibliography

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 3

Act of 1997, Notice. Federal Register 65 

(October 18, 2000): 62484-62496.

Fish D. 1993. Population ecology of Ixodes 

dammini. Pages 25-42 in Ginsberg H, ed. 

Ecology and management of Lyme disease. 

New Brunswick (NJ): Rutgers University 

Press.

Gibbs, J.P., J.R. Longcore, D.G. McAuley and J.K. 

Ringelman. 1991. Use of wetland habitats by 

selected nongame water birds in Maine. U.S. 

Fish Wildl. Serv., Fish Wildl. Res. 9.

Gibbs, J.P. and S.M. Melvin. 1992. Pied-billed grebe. 

Pp. 31-49 in K.J. Schneider and D. Pence, eds. 

Migratory nongame birds of management 

concern in the northeast. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. 

Groot Bruinderink, G.W.T.A. 1989. The impact of 

wild geese visiting improved grasslands in the 

Netherlands. J. App. Ecol. 26:131-46.

Gutzwiller, K.J., R.T. Wiedenmann, K.L. Clements. 

1997. Does human intrusion alter the seasonal 

timing of avian song during breeding periods? 

Auk. 114:55-65.

Healy, W.M., D.S. DeCalesta, and S.L. Stout. 1997. 

A research perspective on white-tailed deer 

overabundance in the northeastern United 

States. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 25(2):259-263.

Holt, D.W. and S.M. Leasure. 1993. Short-eared 

Owl. In The Birds of North America, No. 62 (A. 

Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural 

Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American 

Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC.

Hunter, M.L., Jr. 1975. Least tern breeding range 

extension in Maine. Auk 92(1):143-144.

Jones, J.M. and J.H. Witham. 1990. Posttranslocation survival and movements of 

metropolitan white-tailed deer. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 18:434-441.

 Jordan, M.J., W. A. Patterson, III, and A. G. 

Windisch. 2003. Conceptual ecological models 

for the Long Island pitch pine barrens: 

implications for managing rare plant 

communities. Forest Ecology and Management 

185:151-168.

Kahl, R. 1991. Boating disturbance of canvasbacks 

during migration at Lake Poygan, Wisconsin. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:243-248.

Kaiser, M.S., and E.K. Kaiser. 1984. Effects of river 

recreationists on green-backed heron behavior. 

J. Wildlife Management 48:561-567.

Kear, J. 1963. The agricultural importance of wild 

goose droppings. Wildfowl 14:72-77.

Keith, L.B., 1974. Some features of population 

dynamics in mammals. Trans. International 

Congress of Game Biologists, Stockholm. 11:17-

58.

Kirkpatrick, H.J., A.M. LaBonte, and J.T. Semour. 

2002. A shotgun-archery deer hunt in a 

residential community: evaluation of hunt 

strategies and effectiveness. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 30:478-486.

Klein, M.L. 1989. Effects of high levels of Human 

Visitation on Foraging Waterbirds at J.N. 

“Ding” Darling NWR, Sanibel, Florida. Final 

Report to USFWS. 103pp.

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses 

to human disturbances. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin. 21:31-39.

Knight, R.L. 1984. Responses of wintering 

bald eagles to boating activity. J. Wildlife 

Management 48:999-1004.

Krausman, P.R., L.K. Sowls, and B.D. Leopold. 

1992. Revisiting overpopulated deer ranges 

in the United States. California Fish & Game 

Journal. 78:1-10.

Krohne, D. T., and G. A. Hoch. 1999. Demography 

of Peromyscus leucopus populations on habitat 

patches: the role of dispersal. Canadian Journal 

of Zoology 77:1247–1253.

Kroll, J.C., P.J. Behrman, and W.D. Goodrum. 

1986. Twenty-seven years of overbrowsing: 

implications in white-tailed deer management. 

Pages 6-7 in The Ninth Annual Meeting of 
Bibliography

4 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

the Southeast Deer Study Group. Gatlinburg, 

Tennessee.

Lane, R. S., J. Piesman, and W. Burgdorfer. 1991. 

Lyme Borreliosis: relation of its causative agent 

to its vectors and hosts in North America and 

Europe. Annual Review of Entomology 36:587–

609.

Little, D. Date Unavailable. Personal 

Communication.

LoGiudice, K., R.S. Ostfeld, K.A. Schmidt, and 

F. Keesing. 2003. The ecology of infectious 

disease: Effects of host diversity and 

community composition on Lyme disease 

risk. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences 100:567-571.

Long Island Sound Study. 2001. Sound Health 

2001: Status and Trends in the Health of 

Long Island Sound. Sponsored by the U.S. 

EPA, Connecticut Dept. of Environmental 

Protection, and NYDEC. Available at http://

www.longislandsoundstudy.net/.

Ludwig, M., D. Rusanowsky, and C. JohnsonHughes. 1997. The impact of installation and 

use of a pier and dock assembly on eelgrass 

(Zostera marina) at Star Island, Montauk, NY: 

Kalikow dock case study. NMFS. 23 pp.

Manny, B.A., W.C. Johnson, and R.G. Wetzel. 

1994. Nutrient additives by waterfowl to lakes 

and reservoirs: Predicting their effects on 

productivity and water quality. Hydrobiologia 

279:121-32.

Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 

2003. Mute Swans in Maryland: A Statewide 

Management Plan. Annapolis, MD. 39 

pp. http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/

finalmsplan.pdf. 

Mather, T. N. 1993. The dynamics of spirochete 

transmission between ticks and vertebrates. 

Pages 43–60 in H. S. Ginsberg, editor. Ecology 

and environmental management of Lyme 

disease. Rutgers University Press, New 

Brunswick, New Jersey.

McShea, W.J., and J.H. Rappole. 1992. Whitetailed deer as keystone species within forested 

habitats of Virginia. Virginia J. Sci. 43:177-186.

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929. (16 

U.S.C. 715-715r).

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. 

Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird 

communities. Ecological Applications. 8(1) 162-

169.

Mulvihill, E.L., C.A. Francisco, J.B. Glad, K.B. 

Kaster, and R.E. Wilson. 1980. Biological 

impacts of minor shoreline structures on the 

coastal environment: state of the art review. 

USFWS. Biological Serv. Prog. FWS/OBS77/51.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

Coastal Services Center. http://www.csc.noaa.

gov/crs/lca/app_ny.html.

National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. 

(16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.).

Ness, E. 2003. Oh, deer, exploding populations of 

white-tailed deer are stripping our forests of 

life. Discover pp.67-71

 Newsday, Inc. Date unavailable. Long Island: Our 

Story. http://www.newsday.com/community/

guide/lihistory/. 

New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation. 1999. Eastern Mud Turtle Fact 

Sheet. http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/

dfwmr/wildlife/endspec/mutufs.html.

New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation. 2001. Division of Air Resources. 

http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dar/reports/

2001all.pdf.

New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation. 2003. List of Endangered, 

Threatened and Special Concern Fish & 

Wildlife Species of New York State. http://www.

dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/endspec/

etsclist.html.
Bibliography

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 5

New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation. 2004. New York Natural 

Heritage Program. http://www.dec.state.ny.us/

website/dfwmr/heritage/.

New York State Department of Labor. Date 

unavailable. Focus on Long Island. http://www.

labor.state.ny.us.

New York State Office of Parks, Recreation 

and Historic Preservation. 2003. Statewide 

Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 2003. 

http://nysparks.state.ny.us/agency/scorp/.

Niedzielski, S. 2002. “Terrapene carolina” (On-line), 

Animal Diversity Web. Accessed May 2006 at 

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/

accounts/information/Terrapene_carolina.

html.

Norton, D.J., J. Organ, and T. Litwin. 1984. Habitat 

classification and cover type mapping for the 

Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Newton, MA.

Nupp, T. E., and R. K. Swihart. 1998. Effects of 

forest fragmentation on population attributes 

of white-footed mice and eastern chipmunks. 

Journal of Mammology 79:1234–1243.

 Obrecht, H. Wildlife Biologist. Patuxent Research 

Refuge. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

Olsvig, L. S., J. F. Cryan, and R. H. Whittaker. 

1979. Vegetational gradients of the pine plains 

and barrens of Long Island, New York. IN Pine 

barrens ecosystem and landscape. Rutgers 

University Press, NJ. 

Ostfeld R.S., C. G. Jones, and J.O.Wolff. 1996. Of 

mice and mast. Bioscience 46: 323-330.

Ostfeld R.S., F. Keesing. 2000a. Biodiversity 

and disease risk: the case of Lyme disease. 

Conservation Biology 14: 1523-1739.

Ostfeld, R.S. and F. Keesing. 2000b. The function 

of biodiversity in the ecology of vector-borne 

zoonotic diseases. Canadian Journal of Zoology 

78:2061-2078.

Packer, Laurence. 1999. COSEWIC Status Report 

on the FROSTED ELFIN BUTTERFLY, 

Callophrys (Incisalia) irus. Committee on the 

Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.

Partners in Flight. 2000. Landbird Conservation 

Plan: Physiographic Area 9: Southern New 

England. Version 1.0. Availabe at http://www.

blm.gov/wildlife/pl_09sum.htm.

Patterson, W. A., III, and K. E. Sassman. 1988. 

Indian fires in the prehistory of New England. 

In Holocene human ecology in northeastern 

North America. Plenum Press, New York.

Petranka, J. 1998. Salamanders of the United 

States and Canada. Washington and London: 

Smithsonian Institution Press.

Poff, N.L. 1997. Trout Unlimited’s North America 

Salmonid Policy: science-based guidance for 

21st century coldwater conservation. Trout 

Unlimited, Arlington, VA.

Porter, W.F. 1991. White-tailed deer in eastern 

ecosystems: implications for management and 

research in National Parks. Natural Resources 

Report NPS/NRSSUNY/NRR-91/05.

Reschke, C. 1990. Ecological Communities of New 

York State. New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation, Natural Heritage 

Program. Albany, New York. 

Russell, F.L. and N.L. Fowler. 1999. Rarity of oak 

saplings in savannas and woodlands of the 

eastern Edwards Plateau, TX. Southwest. Nat. 

44:31-41.

Shafer, D.J. 1999. The effects of dock shading on 

the seagrass (Halodule wrightii) in Perdido 

Bay, Alabama. Estuaries. 22:936-943.

Short, F.T., and S. Wyllie-Echeverria. 1996. Natural 

and human induced disturbance of seagrasses. 

Env. Cons. 23:17-27.

Slotta, L.S. and K.J. Williamson. 1974. Estuarine 

impacts related to dredge spoiling. Sixth 

Dredging Seminar Rep. CDS-176.
Bibliography

6 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Smith, A., S.R. Craven, & P.D. Curtis. 

1999. Managing Canada geese in urban 

environments. Jack Berryman Institute 

Publication 16, and Cornell Cooperative 

Extension, Ithaca, New York USA. 42 pages.

Spinello, A. G., J. H. Nakao, R. Busciolano, R. 

B. Winowitch and V. K. Eagen. 1993. Water 

Resources Data, New York, Water Year 1992. 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report NY 

92-2.

Stapp, W., D. Bennett, W. Bryan, J. Fulton, J. 

MacGregor, P. Nowak, J. Wan, R. Wall, and S. 

Havlick. 1969. The Concept of Environmental 

Education. Journal of Environmental 

Education. 1 (1), 30–31.

Stebbins, R. 1966. A Field Guide of Reptiles and 

Amphibians.. Cambridge: The Riverside Press.

Strole, T.A., and R.C. Anderson. 1992. Whitetailed deer browsing: species preferences and 

implications for central Illinois forests. Natural 

Areas Journal 12:139-144.

 Suffolk County Department of Health Services. 

Date unavailable. Unpublished data. For more 

information, visit http://www.co.suffolk.ny.us/

webtemp3.cfm?dept=6&id=1003.

Swihart, R.K., P.M. Picone, A.J. DeNicola, and 

L. Corncelli. 1995. Ecology of urban and 

suburban white-tailed deer. Pages 35-44 in J.B. 

McAninch, editor, Urban deer-a manageable 

resource? Proceedings of the 1993 Symposium 

of the Central Section, The Wildlife Society.

Thompson, B.C., J.A. Jackson, J. Burger, L.A. Hill, 

E.M. Kirsch, and J.L. Atwood. 1997. Least tern. 

The Birds of North America. 

Traill-Stevenson. A. 1988. Agricultural damage 

by geese. Game Conservation Annual Review 

19:155-56.

USDA and VDGIF. 2000. Pre-Decisional 

Environmental Assessment. Deer damage 

management in the commonwealth of Virginia. 

Prepared by USDA, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, in 

conjunction with Virginia Department of Game 

and Inland Fisheries.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. 

Total Maximum Daily Load Report for Oyster 

Bay Harbor. http://oaspub.epa.gov/pls/tmdl/

enviro.control?p_list_id=NY-1702-0016&p_

cycle=2002.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1985. Refuge Manual. 

Wash., D.C. U.S. Gov’t Printing Office.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1989. Sandplain 

Gerardia (Agalinis acuta) Recovery Plan. 

Region 5, Newton Corner, MA. 47 pp. http://

ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/SpeciesRecovery.

do?sort=1

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1990. Regional 

Wetlands Concept Plan: Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act. Northeast Region. Newton 

Corner, MA.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1991. Northeast 

Coastal Areas Study: Significant Coastal 

Habitats of Southern New England and 

Portions of Long Island, New York. Southern 

New England–Long Island Sound Coastal and 

Estuary Office, Charlestown, RI.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1992. Station 

Management Plan–Long Island, NY National 

Wildlife Refuges. Unpubl. Rept.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1995. Migratory 

Nongame Birds of Management Concern 

in the United States: The 1995 List. http://

migratorybirds.fws.gov/reports/speccon/

tblconts.html.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1996a. Piping 

Plover (Charadrius melodus), Atlantic Coast 

Population, Revised Recovery Plan. Region 5, 

Hadley, MA. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/

SpeciesRecovery.do?sort=1

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1996b. Significant 

Habitats and Habitat Complexes of the 

New York Bight Watershed. Southern New 

England – New York Bight Coastal Ecosystems 

Program. Charlestown, Rhode Island. Prepublication copy. 
Bibliography

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 7

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1997. Museums: 

Policy, Responsibilities, and Definitions. In 

Service Manual. 126 FW 1. http://www.fws.

gov/policy/126fw1.html.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1998. Roseate Tern 

(Sterna dougallii) Northeastern Population 

Recovery Plan. First Update. 75 pp. http://ecos.

fws.gov/tess_public/SpeciesRecovery.do?sort=1

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2000. North American 

Bird Conservation Initiative. Supplement to 

the NABCI Bird Conservation Regions map. 

Arlington, VA.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2001. Fire 

Management handbook. http://fire.r9.fws.gov/

fm/policy/HANDBOOK/2-3.HTM. 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2004. Migratory Bird 

Program Strategic Plan. http://migratorybirds.

fws.gov/mbstratplan/MBStratPlanTOC.htm.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2005. Final 

Environmental Impact Statement on Resident 

Canada Goose Management. http://www.fws.

gov/migratorybirds/issues/cangeese/finaleis.

htm.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2005. State Wildlife 

Grants. http://federalaid.fws.gov/swg/swg.html.

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. 2000. North 

Atlantic Regional ShorebirdPlan, Version 1.0. 

NJ Division of Fish & Wildlife, Woodbine, NJ.

Van Buskirk, J., and R.S. Ostfeld. 1995. Controlling 

Lyme disease by modifying the density and 

species composition of tick hosts. Ecological 

Applications 5(4):1133-1140.

Van Deelen, T.R., K.S. Pregitzer, and J.B. Haufler. 

1996. A comparison of presettlement and 

present-day forests in two northern Michigan 

deer yards. Am. Midl. Nat. 135:181-194.

Vaughan, D. M., and M. D. Shepherd. 2005. Species 

Profile: Mitoura hesseli. In Shepherd, M. D., D. 

M. Vaughan, and S. H. Black (Eds). Red List of 

Pollinator Insects of North America. CD-ROM 

Version 1 (May 2005). Portland, OR: The Xerces 

Society for Invertebrate Conservation.

Vickery, P. D. and P. W. Dunwiddie. 1997. Grasslands 

of Northeastern North America: Ecology 

and Conservation of Native and Agricultural 

Landscapes. Massachusetts Audubon, Lincoln, 

MA.

Villani, R. 1997. Long Island: A Natural History. 

Harry Abrams Publishing, New York.

Wacker, P. O. 1979. Human exploitation of the New 

Jersey Pine Barrens before 1900. IN Pine 

barrens ecosystem and landscape. Rutgers 

University Press.

Wagner, F.H., R. Foresta, R.B. Gill, D.R. 

McCullough, M.R. Pelton, W.F. Porter, and H. 

Salwasser. 1995. Wildlife policies in the U.S. 

national Parks. Island Press. 242 pp.

Wall, T. 1984. Summer foods of feral greylag and 

Canada geese. British Birds 77:355.

Waller, D.M., and W.S. Alverson. 1997. The whitetailed deer: a keystone herbivore. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin. 25:217-226.

Warren, R.J. 1991. Ecological justification for 

controlling deer populations in eastern national 

parks. Transactions of the 56th North American 

Wildlife & Natural Resources Conference. P. 

56-66.

Weiss, J.S. and P. Weis. 1994. Impacts of 

chromated-copper-arsenate (CCA)-treated 

wood in shallow water estuarine systems. Proc. 

Marine and estuarine shallow water science and 

management in the mid-Atlantic. Pg. 19.

Whitaker, J. Jr., and W. Hamilton Jr. 1998. 

Mammals of the Eastern United States. Ithaca 

and London. Cornell University Press.

Wolfe, R. J. 1996. Effects of open marsh water 

management on selected tidal marsh resources: 

a review. Journal of the American Mosquito 

Control Association 12(4):701-712.

Wolff, J.O. 1999. Behavioral Model Systems. In

G.W. Barrett and J.D. Peles (Eds). Landscape 

Ecology of Small Mammals. Springer-Verlag, 

New York.
Bibliography

8 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Woolf, A., and J.D. Harder. 1979. Population 

dynamics of a captive white-tailed deer herd 

with emphasis on reproduction and mortality. 

Wildlife Monographs 67:53.

Zieman, J.C. 1976. The ecological effects of physical 

damage from motor boats on turtle grass beds 

in southern Florida. J. Aquatic Botany. 2:127-

139.
Appendix A

Species Lists and Threatened or Endangered Species

Bird Species of the Complex

Mammal Species of the Complex

Reptile and Amphibian Species of the Complex

Fish Species of the Complex

Butterfly Species of the Complex

Threatened or Endangered Species













Great egrets rely on wetlands for feeding and nesting.

© Mark Wilson

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 A-1

Appendix A

A-2 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Bird Species Amagansett Conscience 

Point 

Lido 

Beach Morton Oyster Bay Sayville Seatuck Target Rock Wertheim 

s=Spring (Mar–May) S=Summer (Jun–Aug) A=Autumn (Sep–Nov) W=Winter (Dec–Feb) 

*=Birds documented breeding at the Complex 

Red-Throated Loon 

Gavia stellata 

s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW 

Common Loon (Sc) 

Gavia immer 

s AW s AW s AW sSAW s AW s AW s AW sSAW 

Horned Grebe 

Podiceps auritus 

s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW 

Red Necked Grebe 

Podiceps grisegena 

s AW s AW 

Eared Grebe 

Podiceps nigricollis 

 s AW 

Pied-billed Grebe*(St) 

Podilymbus podiceps 

 s AW s AW s AW s AW sSAW sSAW sSAW* 

Great Cormorant 

Phalacrocorax carbo 

s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW 

Double-crested Cormorant 

Phalacrocorax auritus 

sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW 

Brown Pelican 

Pelecanus occidentalis 

S S

Northern Gannet 

Morus bassanus 

s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW 

Brown Booby 

Sula leucogaster 

S

American Bittern* (Sc) 

Botaurus lentiginosus 

 s AW s AW s AW s AW sSAW* s AW sSAW* 

Least Bittern*(St) 

Ixobrychus exilis 

sSA* sSAW* 

Great Blue Heron 

Ardea herodias 

s AW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW 

Great Egret 

Casmerodius albus 

sSA sSA sSAW sSA sSA sSA sSA sSAW 

Snowy Egret 

Egretta thula 

sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA

Little Blue Heron 

Egretta caerulea 

sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA

Tricolored Heron 

Egretta tricolor 

sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA

Cattle Egret 

Bubulcus ibis 

SA SA SA SA SA SA SA

Green Heron* 

Butorides striatus 

sSA sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * 

Bird Species of the Complex

Bird Species of the Complex
Appendix A

A-2 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Bird Species of the Complex

Draft CCP/EA - June 2006 A-3

Bird Species Amagansett Conscience 

Point 

Lido 

Beach Morton Oyster Bay Sayville Seatuck Target Rock Wertheim 

s=Spring (Mar–May) S=Summer (Jun–Aug) A=Autumn (Sep–Nov) W=Winter (Dec–Feb) 

*=Birds documented breeding at the Complex 

Black-crowned Night-Heron* 

Nycticorax nycticorax 

sSAW sSAW sSAW* sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW 

Yellow-crowned Night- Heron* 

Nycticorax violacea 

sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA * sSA

Glossy Ibis 

Plegadis falcinellus 

 sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA

Tundra Swan 

Cygnus columbianus 

s AW s AW 

Mute Swan* 

Cygnus olor 

sSAW sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Snow Goose 

Chen caerulescens 

 s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW 

Brant 

Branta bernicla 

 s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW 

Canada Goose* 

Branta canadensis 

sSAW sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Wood Duck* 

Aix sponsa 

 sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSAW* 

Green-winged Teal* 

Anas crecca 

 s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW sSAW* 

American Black Duck* 

Anas rubripes 

s AW sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* s AW sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Mallard* 

Anas platyrhynchos 

s AW sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* s AW sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Northern Pintail 

Anas acuta 

 s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW 

Blue-winged Teal* 

Anas discors 

s A s A s A s A sSAW s AW sSAW* 

Northern Shoveler 

Anas clypeata 

 s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW 

Gadwall* 

Anas strepera 

 sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW* sSAW* s AW sSAW* 

American Widgeon* 

Anas americana 

 s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW sSAW* 

Canvasback 

Aythya valisineria 

 s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW 

Redhead 

Aythya americana 

s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW 

Ring-necked Duck 

Aythya collaris 

s A s A s A s AW s A s A s AW 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 A-3

Appendix A

A-4 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Bird Species Amagansett Conscience 

Point 

Lido 

Beach Morton Oyster Bay Sayville Seatuck Target Rock Wertheim 

s=Spring (Mar–May) S=Summer (Jun–Aug) A=Autumn (Sep–Nov) W=Winter (Dec–Feb) 

*=Birds documented breeding at the Complex 

Greater Scaup 

Aythya marila 

 s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW 

Lesser Scaup 

Aythya affinis 

 s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW 

Common Eider 

Somateria mollissima 

s AW s AW s AW 

Harlequin Duck 

Histrionicus histrionicus 

s AW s AW 

Oldsquaw 

Clangula hyemalis 

s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW sSAW 

Black Scoter 

Melanitta nigra 

s AW s AW s AW s AW 

Surf Scoter 

Melanitta perspicillata 

s AW s AW s AW s AW 

White-winged Scoter 

Melanitta fusca 

s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW 

Common Goldeneye 

Bucephala clangula 

s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW 

Bufflehead 

Bucephala albeola 

s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW sSAW 

Hooded Merganser 

Lophodytes cucullatus 

 s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW sSAW 

Common Merganser 

Mergus merganser 

s AW s AW s AW s AW 

Red-breasted Merganser* 

Mergus serrator 

s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW sSAW* 

Ruddy Duck 

Oxyura jamaicensis 

 s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW 

Turkey Vulture 

Cathartes aura 

sSA sSA sSA sSA 

Black Vulture 

Coragyps atratus 

 sSA sSA 

Osprey* (Sc) 

Pandion haliaetus 

sSA sSA sSA* sSA* sSA* sSA sSA* sSA sSA* 

Bald Eagle (Ft, St) 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

 s AW s AW s AW sSAW 

Northern Harrier*(St) 

Circus cyaneus 

sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW* 

Sharp-shinned Hawk (Sc) 

Accipiter striatus 

s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW sSAW 

Bird Species of the Complex
Appendix A

A-4 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Bird Species of the Complex

Draft CCP/EA - June 2006 A-5

Bird Species Amagansett Conscience 

Point 

Lido 

Beach Morton Oyster Bay Sayville Seatuck Target Rock Wertheim 

s=Spring (Mar–May) S=Summer (Jun–Aug) A=Autumn (Sep–Nov) W=Winter (Dec–Feb) 

*=Birds documented breeding at the Complex 

Cooper’s Hawk* (Sc) 

Accipiter cooperii 

s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW sSAW* sSAW* 

Northern Goshawk (Sc) 

Accipiter gentilis 

 s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW 

Red-shouldered Hawk* (Sc) 

Buteo lineatus 

s A s A s A s A sSA* 

Broad-winged Hawk* 

Buteo platypterus 

s A s A s A sSA* s A s A s A s A sSA* 

Red-tailed Hawk* 

Buteo jamaicensis 

sSAW sSAW* sSAW sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Rough-legged Hawk 

Buteo lagopus 

s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW 

Golden Eagle (Se) 

Aquila chrysaetos 

W W

American Kestrel* 

Falco sparverius 

sSAW sSAW* sSAW sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Merlin 

Falco columbarius 

s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW 

Peregrine Falcon (Se) 

Falco peregrinus 

s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW sSAW s AW sSAW 

Gyrfalcon 

Falco rusticolus 

s AW s AW 

Swallow-tailed Kite 

Elanoides forficatus 

sSA 

Ring-necked Pheasant * 

Phasianus colchicus 

sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Ruffed Grouse* 

Bonasa umbellus 

sSAW* 

Northern Bobwhite* 

Colinus virginianus 

sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Wild Turkey* 

Meleagris gallopavo 

 sSAW* sSAW* 

Black Rail (Se) 

Laterallus jamaicensis 

A sSA 

Clapper Rail* 

Rallus longirostris 

 sSA sSAW* sSA sSA * sSA sSA sSAW* 

King Rail (St) 

Rallus elegans 

s A s A s A s A 

Virginia Rail* 

Rallus limicola 

 sSA sSA sSA * sSA sSA * sSA sSAW* 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 A-5

Appendix A

A-6 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Bird Species Amagansett Conscience 

Point 

Lido 

Beach Morton Oyster Bay Sayville Seatuck Target Rock Wertheim 

s=Spring (Mar–May) S=Summer (Jun–Aug) A=Autumn (Sep–Nov) W=Winter (Dec–Feb) 

*=Birds documented breeding at the Complex 

Sora 

Porzana carolina 

s A s A s A s A s A s A s A 

American Coot* 

Fulica americana 

 s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW sSAW* 

Common Gallinule* 

Gallinula chloropus 

SA sSA * 

Purple Gallinule 

Porphyrula martinica 

SA

Yellow Rail 

Coturnicops noveboracensis 

Corn Crake 

Crex crex 

Black-bellied Plover 

Pluvialis squatarola 

sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW 

Lesser Golden Plover 

Pluvialis dominica 

s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A 

Wilson’s Plover 

Charadrius wilsonia 

 S 

Semipalmated Plover 

Charadrius semipalmatus 

sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA 

Piping Plover*(Ft, Se) 

Charadrius melodus 

sSA sSA * sSA sSA* 

Killdeer* 

Charadrius vociferus 

sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA sSA * sSA sSA * 

American Oystercatcher 

Haematopus palliatus 

sSA sSA sSAW sSAW sSA sSA sSA sSAW 

Greater Yellowlegs 

Tringa melanoleuca 

sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW 

Lesser Yellowlegs 

Tringa flavipes 

sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA 

Solitary Sandpiper 

Tringa solitaria 

sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA 

Spotted Sandpiper* 

Actitis macularia 

s SA sSA sSA sSA * sSA sSA sSA sSA * 

Willet* 

Catoptrophorus 

semipalmatus 

sSA sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA sSA * 

Whimbrel 

Numenius phaeopus 

 sSA sSA sSA sSA 

Ruddy Turnstone 

Arenaria interpres 

sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA 

Bird Species of the Complex
Appendix A

A-6 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Bird Species of the Complex

Draft CCP/EA - June 2006 A-7

Bird Species Amagansett Conscience 

Point 

Lido 

Beach Morton Oyster Bay Sayville Seatuck Target Rock Wertheim 

s=Spring (Mar–May) S=Summer (Jun–Aug) A=Autumn (Sep–Nov) W=Winter (Dec–Feb) 

*=Birds documented breeding at the Complex 

Red Knot 

Calidris canutus 

sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA 

Marbled Godwit 

Limosa fedoa 

S S S

Hudsonian Godwit 

Limosa haemastica 

sSA sSA sSA 

Sanderling 

Calidris alba 

sSAW sSA sSAW sSAW sSAW sSA sSAW sSA 

Semipalmated Sandpiper 

Calidris pusilla 

sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA 

Western Sandpiper 

Calidris mauri 

s A s A sSA sSA s A s A s A s A 

Least Sandpiper 

Calidris minutilla 

sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA 

White-rumped Sandpiper 

Calidris fuscicollis 

SA SA sSA SA SA SA S SA

Pectoral Sandpiper 

Calidris melanotos 

sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA 

Purple Sandpiper 

Calidris maritima 

 W 

Dunlin 

Calidris alpina 

sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW 

Stilt Sandpiper 

Micropalama himantopus 

 sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA 

Short-billed Dowitcher 

Limnodromus griseus 

sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA 

Common Snipe 

Capella gallinago 

s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW sSAW 

American Woodcock* 

Philohela minor 

s AW s AW s AW sSAW* s AW s AW s AW s AW sSAW* 

Northern Phalarope 

Phalaropus lobatus 

sSA sSA sSA 

Red Phalarope 

Phalaropus fulicarius 

sSA sSA 

Wilson’s Phalarope 

Phalaropus tricolor 

sSA sSA sSA 

Upland Sandpiper (St) 

Bartramia longicauda 

 sSA sSA sSA 

Parasitic Jaeger 

Stercorarius parasiticus 

 SA 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 A-7

Appendix A

A-8 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Bird Species Amagansett Conscience 

Point 

Lido 

Beach Morton Oyster Bay Sayville Seatuck Target Rock Wertheim 

s=Spring (Mar–May) S=Summer (Jun–Aug) A=Autumn (Sep–Nov) W=Winter (Dec–Feb) 

*=Birds documented breeding at the Complex 

Laughing Gull 

Larus atricilla 

sSA sSA sSAW sSAW sSA sSA sSA sSAW 

Herring Gull 

Larus argentatus 

sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW 

Ring-billed Gull 

Larus delawarensis 

sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW 

Iceland Gull 

Larus glaucoides 

W W W W

Lesser Black-backed Gull 

Larus fuscus 

 W W

Glaucous Gull 

Larus hyperboreus 

 W W W

Great Black-backed Gull 

Larus marinus 

sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW 

Ivory Gull 

Pagophila eburnea 

Caspian Tern 

Sterna caspia 

 A A

Royal Tern 

Sterna maxima 

sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA 

Roseate Tern (Fe, Se) 

Sterna dougallii 

sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA 

Arctic Tern 

Sterna paradisaea 

 sS 

Common Tern* (St) 

Sterna hirundo 

sSA sSA sSA sSA * sSA sSA sSA sSA 

Forster’s Tern 

Sterna forsteri 

SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA

Least Tern* (St) 

Sterna albifrons 

sSA sSA sSA sSA * sSA sSA sSA sSA 

Black Tern (Se) 

Chlidonias nigra s S A

Black Skimmer (Sc) 

Rynchops niger 

sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA sSA 

Gull-billed Tern 

Gelochelidon nilotica s

Black-legged Kittiwake 

Rissa tridactyla 

Rock Dove* 

Columba livia 

sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW sSAW* 

Bird Species of the Complex
Appendix A

A-8 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Bird Species of the Complex

Draft CCP/EA - June 2006 A-9

Bird Species Amagansett Conscience 

Point 

Lido 

Beach Morton Oyster Bay Sayville Seatuck Target Rock Wertheim 

s=Spring (Mar–May) S=Summer (Jun–Aug) A=Autumn (Sep–Nov) W=Winter (Dec–Feb) 

*=Birds documented breeding at the Complex 

Mourning Dove* 

Zenaida macroura 

sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Monk Parakeet 

Myiopsitta monachus 

sSAW 

Budgerigar 

Melopsittacus undulatus 

sSAW 

Black-billed Cuckoo* 

Coccyzus erythropthalmus 

sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo* 

Coccyzus americanus 

sSA * sSA * sSA sSA * sSA sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * 

Barn Owl* 

Tyto alba 

sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW sSAW* 

Eastern Screech Owl* 

Otus asio 

sSAW* sSAW* sSAW sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Great Horned Owl* 

Bubo virginianus 

sSAW sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Snowy Owl 

Nyctea scandiaca 

s AW s AW s AW s AW 

Long-eared Owl 

Asio otus 

s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW sSAW 

Short-eared Owl (Se) 

Asio flammeus 

s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW sSAW 

Northern Saw-whet Owl 

Aegolius acadicus 

s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s AW 

Common Nighthawk* (Sc) 

Chordeiles minor 

s A s A s A s A sSA sSA * s A sSA sSA 

Whip-poor-will* (Sc) 

Caprimulgus vociferus 

s A s A s A s A sSA sSA * sSA* sSA sSA* 

Chuck-will’s-widow 

Caprimulgus carolinensis 

sS 

Chimney Swift* 

Chaetura pelagica 

sSA sSA sSA sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * 

Ruby-throated Hummingbird* 

Archilochus colubris 

sSA * sSA * sSA sSA * sSA * sSA sSA * sSA * sSA * 

Belted Kingfisher* 

Megaceryle alcyon 

sSAW* sSAW* sSAW sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Red-headed Woodpecker* (Sc) 

Melanerpes erythrocephalus 

s A s A s A s A s A s A s A sSA * sSAW 

Red-bellied Woodpecker* 

Centurus carolinus 

sSAW* sSAW* sSAW sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 A-9

Appendix A

A-10 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Bird Species Amagansett Conscience 

Point 

Lido 

Beach Morton Oyster Bay Sayville Seatuck Target Rock Wertheim 

s=Spring (Mar–May) S=Summer (Jun–Aug) A=Autumn (Sep–Nov) W=Winter (Dec–Feb) 

*=Birds documented breeding at the Complex 

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker 

Sphyrapicus varius 

s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s AW 

Downy Woodpecker* 

Picoides pubescens 

sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Hairy Woodpecker* 

Picoides villosus 

sSAW sSAW* sSAW sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Northern Flicker* 

Colaptes auratus 

sSAW* sSAW* sSAW sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Pileated Woodpecker 

Dryocopus pileatus 

A A 

Olive-sided Flycatcher 

Nuttallornis borealis 

s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A 

Eastern Wood Pewee* 

Contopus virens 

sSA sSA * sSA sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * 

Yellow-bellied Flycatcher 

Empidonax flaviventris 

A A A A A

Alder Flycatcher* 

Empidonax alnorum 

ssA ssA s A s A s A s A sSA * s A sSA * 

Least Flycatcher 

Empidonax minimus 

s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A sSA * 

Acadian Flycatcher* 

Empidonax virescens 

s A s A sSA s A s A s A s A ssA * 

Eastern Phoebe* 

Sayornis phoebe 

sSA * ssA * s A sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * 

Great Crested Flycatcher* 

Myiarchus crinitus 

sSA * sSA * s A sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * 

Eastern Kingbird* 

Tyrannus tyrannus 

sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * 

Horned Lark* (Sc) 

Eremophila alpestris 

sAW* sSAW* s AW sSAW* s AW sSAW* s AW s AW s AW 

Purple Martin* 

Progne subis 

s A s A s A s A s A s A sSA* s A sSA* 

Tree Swallow* 

Iridoprocne bicolor 

sSA* sSA* sSA* sSA* sSA* sSA* sSA* sSA* sSAW* 

Northern Rough-winged 

Swallow* 

Stelgidopteryx ruficollis 

s A s A s A sSA* sSA* s A sSA* sSA* sSA* 

Bank Swallow* 

Riparia riparia 

s A s A s A sSA* sSA* s A s A sSA* s A 

Barn Swallow* 

Hirundo rustica 

sSA* sSA* sSA* sSA* sSA* sSA* sSA* sSA* sSA* 

Bird Species of the Complex
Appendix A

A-10 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Bird Species of the Complex

Draft CCP/EA - June 2006 A-11

Bird Species Amagansett Conscience 

Point 

Lido 

Beach Morton Oyster Bay Sayville Seatuck Target Rock Wertheim 

s=Spring (Mar–May) S=Summer (Jun–Aug) A=Autumn (Sep–Nov) W=Winter (Dec–Feb) 

*=Birds documented breeding at the Complex 

Cliff Swallow 

Petrochelidon pyrrhonota 

A

Blue Jay* 

Cyanocitta cristata 

sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

American Crow* 

Corvus brachyrhynchos 

sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Fish Crow* 

Corvus ossifragus 

sSAW sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Black-capped Chickadee* 

Parus atricapillus 

sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Tufted Titmouse* 

arus bicolor 

sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Red-breasted Nuthatch 

Sitta canadensis 

W s AW W s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW 

White-breasted Nuthatch* 

Sitta carolinensis 

sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* s SAW* sS AW* sS AW* s SAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Brown Creeper* 

Certhia familiaris 

s AW* s AW* sAW* s AW* s AW* s AW* s AW* s AW sSAW* 

Carolina Wren*Thryothorus 

ludovicianus

sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

House Wren* 

Troglodytes aedon 

sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Winter Wren 

Troglodytes troglodytes 

s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW 

Sedge Wren (St) 

Cistothorus platensis 

s A 

Marsh Wren* 

Cistothorus palustris 

s A sSA* sSA* sSA* sSA* s A sSA* sSAW* sSAW* 

Golden-crowned Kinglet 

Regulus satrapa 

s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW 

Ruby-crowned Kinglet 

Regulus calendula 

s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW 

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher* 

Polioptila caerulea 

s A sSA* s A sSA* sSA* s A sSA* sSA* sSA* 

Eastern Bluebird* 

Sialia sialis 

s A sSAW s A sSAW s A s A s AW s A sSAW* 

Veery*

Cathaurs fuscescens 

s A sSA s A sSA* s A s A sSA* sSA* sSA* 

Gray-cheeked Thrush 

Catharus minimus 

s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 A-11

Appendix A

A-12 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Bird Species Amagansett Conscience 

Point 

Lido 

Beach Morton Oyster Bay Sayville Seatuck Target Rock Wertheim 

s=Spring (Mar–May) S=Summer (Jun–Aug) A=Autumn (Sep–Nov) W=Winter (Dec–Feb) 

*=Birds documented breeding at the Complex 

Swainson’s Thrush 

Catharus ustulatus 

s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A 

Hermit Thrush* 

Catharus guttatus 

s AW sSA* s AW sSAW* s AW s AW sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Wood Thrush* 

Hylocichla mustelina 

s A sSA* s A sSA* s A sSA* sSA* sSA* sSA* 

American Robin* 

Turdus migratorius 

sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Northern Wheatear 

Oenanthe oenanthe 

A

Gray Catbird* 

Dumetella carolinensis 

sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Northern Mockingbird* 

Mimus polyglottos 

sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Brown Thrasher* 

Toxostoma rufum 

sSA* sSA* sSA* sSA* sSA* sSA* sSA* sSA* sSAW* 

American Pipit 

Anthus spinoletta 

s A s A s A s A s A s A 

Cedar Waxwing* 

Bombycilla cedrorum 

sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Northern Shrike 

Lanius excubitor 

 s AW s AW s AW s AW 

Loggerhead Shrike (Se) 

Lanius ludovicianus 

s A 

European Starling* 

Sturnus vulgaris 

sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

White-eyed Vireo* 

Vireo griseus 

s A s A sSA* s A s A sSA* sSA* sSA* 

Solitary Vireo 

Vireo solitarius 

s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A 

Yellow-throated Vireo* 

Vireo flavifrons 

s A s A s A s A s A sSA* sSA* 

Warbling Vireo* 

Vireo gilvus 

 sSA* sSA* s A s A s A sSA* sSA* 

Philadelphia Vireo 

Vireo philadelphicus 

s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A 

Red-eyed Vireo* 

Vireo olivaceus 

s A sSA* s A sSA* sSA* sSA* sSA* sSA* sSA* 

Blue-winged Warbler* 

Vermivora pinus 

sSA* sSA* s A sSA* sSA* sSA* sSA* sSA* sSA* 

Bird Species of the Complex
Appendix A

A-12 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Bird Species of the Complex

Draft CCP/EA - June 2006 A-13

Bird Species Amagansett Conscience 

Point 

Lido 

Beach Morton Oyster Bay Sayville Seatuck Target Rock Wertheim 

s=Spring (Mar–May) S=Summer (Jun–Aug) A=Autumn (Sep–Nov) W=Winter (Dec–Feb) 

*=Birds documented breeding at the Complex 

Golden-winged Warbler (Sc) 

Vermivora chrysoptera 

s A s A s A s A s A s A 

Tennessee Warbler 

Vermivora peregrina 

s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A 

Orange-crowned Warbler 

Vermivora celata 

s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s AW 

Nashville Warbler 

Vermivora ruficapilla 

s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A 

Northern Parula Warbler* 

Parula americana 

s A s A s A s A s A s A sSA sSA * sSA 

Yellow Warbler 

Dendroica petechia 

sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * 

Chesnut-sided Warbler 

Dendroica pensylvanica 

s A s A s A s A s A s A s A sSA * sSA 

Magnolia Warbler 

Dendroica magnolia 

s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A 

Cape May Warbler 

Dendroica tigrina 

s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A 

Black-throated Blue Warbler* 

Dendroica caerulescens 

s A s A s A s A s A s A s A sSA * s A 

Yellow-rumped 

WarblerDendroica coronata 

s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW 

Black-throated Green Warbler 

Dendroica virens 

s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A 

Blackburnian Warbler 

Dendroica fusca 

s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A 

Pine Warbler* 

Dendroica pinus 

s A s A s A s A s A sSA * sSA * s A sSA * 

Prairie Warbler* 

Dendroica discolor 

sSA * sSA * s A sSA * s A sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * 

Palm Warbler 

Dendroica palmarum 

s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A 

Bay-breasted Warbler 

Dendroica castanea 

s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A 

Blackpoll Warbler 

Dendroica striata 

s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A 

Black-and-White Warbler* 

Mniotilta varia 

s A sSA * s A sSA * s A sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * 

American Redstart* 

Setophaga ruticilla 

s A sSA * s A sSA * s A sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 A-13

Appendix A

A-14 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Bird Species Amagansett Conscience 

Point 

Lido 

Beach Morton Oyster Bay Sayville Seatuck Target Rock Wertheim 

s=Spring (Mar–May) S=Summer (Jun–Aug) A=Autumn (Sep–Nov) W=Winter (Dec–Feb) 

*=Birds documented breeding at the Complex 

Prothonotary Warbler 

Protonotaria citrea 

 s A s A s A 

Worm-eating Warbler 

Helmitheros vermivorus 

 s A 

Ovenbird* 

Seiurus aurocapillus 

s A sSA * s A sSA * s A sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * 

Northern Waterthrush 

Seiurus noveboracensis 

s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A 

Louisiana Waterthrush 

Seiurus motacilla 

s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A 

Kentucky Warbler 

Oporornis formosus 

 s A s A 

Connecticut Warbler 

Oporornis agilis 

s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A 

Mourning Warbler 

Oporornis philadelphia 

s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A 

Common Yellowthroat* 

Geothlypis trichas 

sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * 

Hooded Warbler 

Wilsonia citrina 

 s A s A 

Cerulean Warbler (Sc) 

Dendroica cerulea 

 s A s A s A 

Wilson’s Warbler 

Wilsonia pusilla 

s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A 

Canada Warbler 

Wilsonia canadensis 

s A s A s A s A s A s A s A sSA * s A 

Yellow-breasted Chat (Sc)

Icteria virens 

s A s A s A s A s A s A sSA * sSA * s A 

Summer Tanager 

Piranga rubra 

s A 

Scarlet Tanager* 

Piranga olivacea 

s A sSA * s A sSA * s A sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * 

Northern Cardinal* 

Cardinalis cardinalis 

sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Rose-breasted Grosbeak* 

Pheucticus ludovicianus 

s A sSA * s A sSA * s A sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * 

Indigo Bunting* 

Passerina cyanea 

sSA * sSA * s A sSA * s A sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * 

Dickcissel 

Spiza americana 

A A

Bird Species of the Complex
Appendix A

A-14 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Bird Species of the Complex

Draft CCP/EA - June 2006 A-15

Bird Species Amagansett Conscience 

Point 

Lido 

Beach Morton Oyster Bay Sayville Seatuck Target Rock Wertheim 

s=Spring (Mar–May) S=Summer (Jun–Aug) A=Autumn (Sep–Nov) W=Winter (Dec–Feb) 

*=Birds documented breeding at the Complex 

Rufous-sided Towhee* 

Pipilo erythrophthalmus 

sSA * sSA * sSA * sSAW* sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSAW* 

American Tree Sparrow 

Spizella arborea 

s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW 

Chipping Sparrow* 

Spizella passerina 

sSA * sSA * s A sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSAW* 

Field Sparrow* 

Spizella pusilla 

sSA * sSA * s A sSA * s A sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * 

Savannah Sparrow* 

Passerculus sandwichensis 

sSAW* sSAW* s AW s AW s AW sSAW* sSAW* s AW sSAW* 

Grasshopper Sparrow (Sc) 

Ammodramus savannarum 

s A s A s A 

Sharp-tailed Sparrow* 

Ammospiza caudacuta 

s A sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* s A sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Seaside Sparrow* (Sc) 

Ammospiza maritima 

s A sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* s A sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Vesper Sparrow (Sc) 

Pooecetes gramineus 

s A s AW s A s AW s AW s A s AW 

Fox Sparrow 

Passerella iliaca 

s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW 

Song Sparrow* 

Milospiza melodia 

sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Lincoln’s Sparrow 

Melospiza lincolnii 

s A s A s A 

Swamp Sparrow* 

Melospiza georgiana 

s A sSAW* s A sSAW* s A s A sSAW* s A sSAW* 

Lark Sparrow 

Chondestes grammacus 

A

White-throated Sparrow 

Zonotrichia albicollis 

s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s W 

White-crowned Sparrow 

Zonotrichia leucophrys 

s W s W s W s W s W s W s W s W s W 

Dark-eyed Junco 

Junco hyemalis 

s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW 

Snow Bunting 

Plectrophenax nivalis 

s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW 

Bobolink 

Dolichonyx oryzivorus 

A A A A

Red-winged Blackbird* 

Agelaius phoeniceus 

sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Eastern Meadowlark* 

Sturnella magna 

sSAW* sSAW* s AW s AW s AW sSAW* sSAW* s AW sSAW* 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 A-15

Appendix A

A-16 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Bird Species Amagansett Conscience 

Point 

Lido 

Beach Morton Oyster Bay Sayville Seatuck Target Rock Wertheim 

s=Spring (Mar–May) S=Summer (Jun–Aug) A=Autumn (Sep–Nov) W=Winter (Dec–Feb) 

*=Birds documented breeding at the Complex 

Rusty Blackbird 

Euphagus carolinus 

s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A s A 

Brewer’s Blackbird 

Euphagus cyanocephalus 

A

Common Grackle* 

Quiscalus quiscula 

sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Boat-tailed Grackle 

Quiscalus major 

S

Brown-headed Cowbird* 

Molothrus ater 

sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Orchard Oriole* 

Icterus spurius 

 sSA * A

Northern Oriole 

Icterus galbula 

sSA * sSA * s A sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSA * sSAW* 

Purple Finch 

Carpodacus purpureus 

s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW 

House Finch 

Carpodacus mexicanus 

sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Red Crossbill 

Loxia curvirostra 

s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW 

White-winged Crossbill 

Loxia leucoptera 

s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW 

Common Redpoll 

Carduelis flammea 

s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW 

Hoary Redpoll 

Carduelis hornemanni 

s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW 

Pine Grosbeak 

Pinicola enucleator 

s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW 

Pine Siskin 

Carduelis pinus 

s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW 

American Goldfinch 

Carduelis tristis 

sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Evening Grosbeak 

Hesperiphona vespertina 

s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW s AW 

House Sparrow 

Passer domesticus 

sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* sSAW* 

Bird Species of the Complex
Appendix A

A-16 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Mammal Species of the Complex

Draft CCP/EA - June 2006 A-17

Mammal Species Amagansett Conscience 

Point 

Lido 

Beach Morton Oyster Bay Sayville Seatuck Target Rock Wertheim 

P=present H=Habitat 

Opossum 

Didelphis marsupialis 

P P P P P P P P P

Masked Shrew 

Sorex cinereus 

P P H P H H H H P

Short-tailed Shrew 

Blarina brevicauda 

P P P P P P P P P

Eastern Mole 

Scalopus aquaticus 

P P H P H P P P P

Star-nosed Mole 

Condylura cristata 

H H

Little Brown Myotis 

Myotis lucifugus 

P P P P P P P P P

Keen’s Myotis 

Myotis keenii 

H

Silver-haired Bat 

Lasionycteris noctivagans 

P P

Eastern Pipistrelle 

Pipistrellus subflavus 

P P P P P P P P P

Big Brown Bat 

Eptesicus fuscus 

P P P P P P P P P

Red Bat 

Lasiurus borealis 

P P P

Hoary Bat 

Lasiurus cinereus 

P

Eastern Cottontail 

Sylvilagus floridanus 

P P P P P P P P P

New England Cottontail (Sc) 

Sylvilagus transitionalis 

H

Woodchuck 

Marmota monax 

 P P

Eastern Chipmunk 

Tamias striatus 

P P P P P P P P P

Gray Squirrel 

Sciurus carolinensis 

P P P P P P P P P

Southern Flying Squirrel 

Glaucomys volans 

P P P P P P P P

White-footed Mouse 

Peromyscus leucopus 

P P P P P P P P P

Meadow Mouse 

Microtus pennsylvanicus 

P P P P P P P P P

Mammal Species of the Complex
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 A-17

Appendix A

A-18 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Mammal Species Amagansett Conscience 

Point 

Lido 

Beach Morton Oyster Bay Sayville Seatuck Target Rock Wertheim 

P=present H=Habitat 

Pine Mouse 

Pitymys pennsylvanicus 

P

Muskrat 

Ondatra zibethicus 

P P P P P P P P

House Mouse 

Mus musculus 

P P P P P P P P P

Norway Rat 

Rattus norvegicus 

P P P P P P P P P

Black Rat 

Rattus rattus 

H

Meadow Jumping Mouse 

Zapus hudsonius 

P P P P P

Harbor Porpoise (Sc) 

Phocoena phocoena 

P

Common Dolphin 

Delphinus delphis 

Bottle-nosed Dolphin 

Tursiops truncatus 

 P 

Red Fox 

Vulpes vulpes 

P P P P P P P P

Gray Fox 

Urocyon cinereoargenteus 

H

Raccoon 

Procyon lotor 

P P P P P P P P P

Long-tailed Weasel 

Mustela frenata 

P P P P P P

Mink 

Mustela vison 

P P P

Striped Skunk 

Mephitis mephitis 

P

River Otter 

Lutra canadensis 

P P

Harbor Seal 

Phoca vitulina 

 P P P P

Harp Seal 

Pagophilus groenlandicus 

Gray Seal 

Halichoerus grypus 

P

Hooded Seal 

Cystophora cristata 

White-tailed Deer 

Odocoileus virginianus 

P P P P P

Mammal Species of the Complex

Mammal Species of the Complex
Appendix A

A-18 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Reptile and Amphibian Species of the Complex

Draft CCP/EA - June 2006 A-19

Reptile and Amphibian Species Amagansett Conscience 

Point 

Lido 

Beach Morton Oyster Bay Sayville Seatuck Target Rock Wertheim 

P=present ?=unconfirmed 

Eastern Snapping Turtle 

Chelydra serpentina 

P P P P P P P

Eastern Musk Turtle 

Sternotherus odoratus 

P P

Eastern Mud Turtle (Se) 

Kinosternon subrubrum 

 ? P

Red-eared Slider 

Chrysemys scripta 

P

False Map Turtle 

Graptemys pseudogeographica 

P

Eastern Painted Turtle 

Chrysemys picta 

P P P P P P

Eastern Diamondback Terrapin 

Malaclemys terrapin 

P P P P P P P

Wood Turtle (Sc) 

Clemmys insculpta 

?

Spotted Turtle (Sc) 

Clemmys guttata 

P P

Eastern Box Turtle (Sc) 

Terrapene carolina 

P P P P P P P P

Chinese Box Turtle

Cistoclemmys flavomarginata

P

Green Sea Turtle (Ft, St) 

Chelonia mydas

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Kemp’s Ridley (Fe, Se) 

Lepidochelys kempi 

 P P

Loggerhead (Ft, St) 

Caretta caretta 

 P P P P

Leatherback (Fe, Se) 

Dermochelys coriacea 

P

Hawksbill (Fe, Se) 

Eretmochelys imbricata 

P

Worm Snake (Sc) 

Carphophis amoenus 

? ? ? ? ? ? ? P

Black Racer 

Coluber constrictor 

P P P ? P P P P

Northern Ringneck Snake

Diadophis punctatus 

P P

Black Rat Snake 

Elaphe obsoleta 

?

Reptile and Amphian Species of the Complex
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 A-19

Appendix A

A-20 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Reptile and Amphibian Species Amagansett Conscience 

Point 

Lido 

Beach Morton Oyster Bay Sayville Seatuck Target Rock Wertheim 

P=present ?=unconfirmed 

Eastern Hognose Snake (Sc) 

Heterodon platyrhinos 

P ? ? ? ? ? P

Eastern Milk Snake 

Lampropeltis triangulum 

P P P P P P P

Northern Water Snake 

Nerodia sipedon 

? P ? P ? P

Rough Green Snake 

Opheodrys aestivus 

? ? ? ? ? P ? P

Smooth Green Snake 

Opheodrys vernalis 

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Brown Snake 

Storeria dekayi 

P P P P ? P P P P

Red-bellied Snake 

Storeria occipitomaculata 

? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Eastern Ribbon Snake 

Thamnophis sauritus 

P P P P P P P P

Common Garter Snake 

Thamnophis sirtalis 

P P P P P P P P P

Eastern Newt 

Notophthalmus viridescens 

? ? P ? ? ? ? P

Spotted Salamander 

Ambystoma maculatum 

? ? ? ? ? P

Marbled Salamander (Sc) 

Ambystoma opacum 

? ? ? ?

Tiger Salamander (Se) 

Ambystoma tigrinum 

?

Dusky Salamander 

Desmognathus fuscus 

? ? ?

Two-lined Salamander 

Eurycea bislineata 

? ? ?

Four-toed Salamander 

Hemidactylium scutatum 

?

Red-backed Salamander 

Plethodon cinereus 

? P P ? P P P P

Eastern Spadefoot Toad (Sc) 

Scaphiopus holbrooki 

P ? ? ? ? ? ? P

Bullfrog 

Rana catesbeiana 

? P P P ? 

Green Frog 

Rana clamitans 

P P P P ? P ? P

Reptile and Amphian Species of the Complex

Reptile and Amphibian Species of the Complex
Appendix A

A-20 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Reptile and Amphibian Species of the Complex

Draft CCP/EA - June 2006 A-21

Reptile and Amphibian Species Amagansett Conscience 

Point 

Lido 

Beach Morton Oyster Bay Sayville Seatuck Target Rock Wertheim 

P=present ?=unconfirmed 

Pickerel Frog 

Rana palustris 

? ? ? ? P ? P

Wood Frog 

Rana sylvatica 

P P P ? ? P ? P

American Toad 

Bufo americanus 

? ?

Fowler’s Toad 

Bufo woodhousei 

P P P P P P P P P

Northern Cricket Frog (Se) 

Acris crepitans 

?

Gray Treefrog 

Hyla versicolor 

? P P ? P P ? P

Spring Peeper 

Hyla crucifer 

P P ? P P P P P P

Chorus Frog 

Pseudacris triseriata 

?

Southern Leopard Frog (Sc) 

Rana sphenocephala 

? ? P ? ? P ? P

Reptile and Amphian Species of the Complex
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 A-21

Appendix A

A-22 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

FAMILY COMMON NAME LATIN NAME 

Angullidae American Eel Anguilla rostrata 

Ammodytidae American Sand Lance Ammodytes hexapterus 

Aphrdoderidae Pirate Perch Aphredoderus sayanus 

Atlantic Silversides Menidia menidia 

Atherninidae 

Tidewater Silversides Menidia beryllinia 

Orange Filefish Aluterus schoepfi 

Balistidae 

Planehead Filefish Monacanthus hispidus 

Batrachoididae Oyster Toadfish Ospanus tau 

Atlantic Needlefish Strongylura marina 

Belonidae 

Agojon Tylosurus acus 

Blenniidae Striped Blenny Chasmodei bosquianus 

Summer Flounder Paralichthys dentatus 

Smallmouth Flounder Etropus microstomus 

Fourspot Flounder Paralichthys oblongus 

Bothidae 

Windowpane Septhtalmus aquosus 

Crevalle Jack Caranx hippo 

Permit Trachinotus falcatus 

Blue Runner Caranx crysos 

Carangidae 

Lookdown Selene vomer 

Sandbar Shark Carcharhinus plumbeus 

Carcharhinidae 

Smooth Dogfish Mustelus canis 

Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 

Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 

Centrarchidae 

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 

Chaetodontidae Foureye Butterflyfish Chaetodon capistratus 

Sea Raven Hemitripterus americanus 

Cottidae Shorthorn sculpin Myoxocephalus scorpius 

Grubby Myoxocephalus aenaeus 

Fish Species of the Complex

Fish Species of the Complex
Appendix A

A-22 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Fish Species of the Complex

Draft CCP/EA - June 2006 A-23

FAMILY COMMON NAME LATIN NAME 

Atlantic Herring Clupea harengus 

Hickory Shad Alosa mediocris 

Blueback Herring Alosa aestivalis 

Alewife Alosa pseuddoharengus 

Clupeidae 

Menhaden Brevoorrtia tyrannus 

Congridae Conger Eel Conger oceanicus 

Carp Cyprinus carpio 

Cyprinidae 

Golden shiner Notemigonus crysolevcas 

Marsh Killifish Fundulus heteroclitus 

Banded Killifish Fundulus diaphanus 

Striped Killifish Fundulus majalis 

Sheepshead Minnow Cyprinodon variegatus 

Cyprinodontidae 

Rainwater Killifish Lucania parva 

Roughtail Stingray Dasyatis centroura 

Dasyatidae 

Cownose Ray Rhinoptera bonasus 

Diodontidae Striped Burrfish Chilomycterus schoepfi 

Engraulidae Bay Anchovy Anchoa mitchilli 

Chain Pickerel Esox miger 

Esocidae 

Redfin Pickerel Esox americanus 

Ballyhoo Hemiamphus brasiliensis 

Exocoetidae Halfbeak Hyporhamphus unifasciatus 

Atlantic Flying Fish Cypselurus melenurus 

Tomcod Microgadus tomcod

Gadidae 

Pollock Pollachius virens

Red Hake Urophycis chuss 

Silver Hake Merluccius bilineraris 

Atlantic Cod Gadus morhua 

Spotted Hake Urophycis regia 

Phycidae 

White Hake Urophycis tenuis 

Fish Species of the Complex
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 A-23

Appendix A

A-24 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

FAMILY COMMON NAME LATIN NAME 

Black Spotted Stickleback Gasterosteus wheatlandi 

Nine Spine Stickleback Pungitius pungitius 

Three Spine Stickleback Gasterosteus acuteatus 

Gasterosteidae 

Four Spine Stickleback Apeltes quadracus 

Seaboard Goby Gobiosoma ginsbugi 

Gobiidae 

Naked Goby Gobiosoma bosci 

Ictaluridae Brown Bullhead Ameriurus nebulosus 

Tautog Tautoga onitis 

Labridae

Cunner Tautogolabrus adspersus 

Lutjanidae Gray Snapper Lutjanus griseus 

Striped Mullet Mugil cephalus 

Mugilidae 

White Mullet Mugil curema 

Smooth Trunkfish Lactophrys triqueter 

Ostraciidae Honeycomb Cowfish Lactophrys polygonia 

Scrawled Cowfish Lactophrys quadricornis 

White Perch Morone americana 

Percichthyidae 

Striped Bass Morone saxatilis 

Yellow Perch Perca flavecens 

Percidae 

Tesselated Darter Etheostomas olmstedi 

Pholidae Rock Gunnel Pholis gunnellus 

Pleuronectidae Winter Flounder Pseudopleuronectes americanus 

Poeciliidae Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis 

Pomatomidae Bluefish Pomatomus saltix 

Little Skate Raja erinacea 

Clearnose Skate Raja eglanteria 

Barndoor Skate Raja laevis 

Rajidae 

Winter Skate Raja ocellata 

Fish Species of the Complex

Fish Species of the Complex
Appendix A

A-24 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Fish Species of the Complex

Draft CCP/EA - June 2006 A-25

FAMILY COMMON NAME LATIN NAME 

Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis 

Salmonidae Brown Trout Salmo trutta 

Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus pygmaea 

Spot Lieostomus xanthrus 

Sciaenidae 

Weakfish Cynoscion regalis 

Silver Perch Bairdialla chryoura 

Scianenidae 

Northern Kingfish Menticirrus saxatilis 

Atlantic Mackerel Scomber scombrus 

Scombridae 

Chub Mackerel Scomber japonicus 

Serrandidae Black Sea Bass Centropristis striata 

Scup Stenotomus chrysops 

Sparidae 

Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides 

Sphyraenidae Northern Sennet Sphyraena borealis 

Squalidae Spiny Dogfish Squalus acanthias 

Stromateidae Butterfish Peprilus triacanthus 

Suleidae Hogchoker Trinectes maculatus 

Lined Seahorse Hippocampus erectus 

Syngnathidae 

Northern Pipefish Syngnathus fuscus 

Synodotidae Inshore Lizardfish Synodus foetens 

Tetraodontidae Northern Puffer Sphoeroides maculatus 

Torpedinidae Atlantic Torpedo Torpedo nobiliana 

Striped Searobin Prionotus evolans 

Triglidae 

Northern Searobin Prionotus carolinas 

Umbridae Eastern Mudminnow Umbra pygmaea 

Fish Species of the Complex
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 A-25

Appendix A

A-26 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

SPECIES PRESENCE ON THE COMPLEX 

SWALLOWTAILS 

Family: Papilionidae 

Pipevine Swallowtail 

Battus philenor ?

Zebra Swallowtail 

Eurytides marcellus ?

Black Swallowtail 

Papilio polyxenes Yes 

Eastern Tiger Swallowtail 

Papilio glaucus Yes 

Spicebush Swallowtail 

Papilio Troilus Yes 

WHITES AND SULFURS 

Family: Pieridae 

Cabbage White

Pieris rapae Yes 

Falcate Orangetip 

Anthocharis midea Yes 

Clouded Sulphur 

Colias philodice Yes 

Cloudless Sulphur 

Phoebis sennae Yes 

GOSSAMER WINGS 

Family: Lycaenidae 

Harvester 

Feniseca tarquinius Yes 

COPPERS 

American Copper 

Lycaena phlaeas Yes 

Bronze Copper 

Lycaena hyllus Yes 

SATYRIUM HAIRSTREAKS 

Coral Hairstreak 

Satyrium titus Yes 

Edwards Hairstreak 

Satyrium edwardsii Yes 

Banded Hairstreak 

Satyrium calanus Yes 

Striped Hairstreak 

Satyrium liparops Yes 

Southern Hairstreak 

Satyrium favonius Yes 

Butterfly Species of the Complex

Butterfly Species of the Complex
Appendix A

A-26 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Butterfly Species of the Complex

Draft CCP/EA - June 2006 A-27

SPECIES PRESENCE ON THE COMPLEX 

SWALLOWTAILS 

Family: Papilionidae 

“Olive” Juniper Hairstreak 

Callophrys gryneus Yes 

Hessel’s Hairstreak (Se) 

Callophrys hesseli ?

Brown Elfin 

Callophrys augustinus ?

Frosted Elfin (St) 

Callophrys irus ?

Henry’s Elfin (Sc) 

Callophrys henrici ?

Eastern Pine Elfin 

Callophrys niphon ?

Gray Hairstreak 

Strymon melinus ?

BLUES 

Eastern Tailed Blue 

Everes comyntas Yes 

Spring Azure 

Celastrina ladon Yes 

SNOUT BUTTERFLIES 

Family: Libytheidae 

BRUSH–FOOTED BUTTERFLIES 

Family: Nymphalidae 

Great Spangled Fritillary 

Speyeria cybele Yes 

Question Mark 

Polygonia interrogationis ?

Eastern Comma 

Polygonia comma ?

Mourning Cloak 

Nymphalis antiopa Yes 

American Lady 

Vanessa virginiensis Yes 

Red Admiral 

Vanessa atalanta Yes 

Red-Spotted Purple 

Limenitis arthemis astyanax Yes 

Viceroy 

Limenitis archippus Yes 

Butterfly Species of the Complex
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 A-27

Appendix A

A-28 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

SPECIES PRESENCE ON THE COMPLEX 

BROWNS 

Subfamily Satyrinae 

Appalachian Brown 

Satyrodes appalachia ?

Little Wood Satyr 

Megisto cymela ?

Common Wood Nymph 

Cercyonis pegala ?

MILKWEED BUTTERFLIES 

Subfamily Danainae 

Monarch 

Danaus plexippus Yes 

THE SKIPPERS 

Superfamily Hesperioidea 

SPREAD-WINGED SKIPPERS 

Pyrginae 

Silver-Spotted Skipper 

Epargyreus clarus Yes 

Southern Cloudywing 

Thorybes bathyllus ?

Northern Cloudywing 

Thorybes pylades ?

DUSKYWINGS 

Sleepy Duskywing 

Eryniss brizo Yes 

Juvenal’s Duskywing 

Eryniss juvenalis Yes 

Wild Indigo Duskywing 

Eryniss baptisiae ?

Common Sootywing 

Pholisora catullus Yes 

FOLDED WING SKIPPERS 

Hesperiidae 

Least Skipper 

Ancyloxypha numitor ?

European Skipper 

Thymelicus lineola ?

Leornard’s Skipper 

Hesperia leonardus ?

Cobweb Skipper 

Hesperia metea ?

Peck’s Skipper 

Polites peckius ?

Butterfly Species of the Complex

Butterfly Species of the Complex
Appendix A

A-28 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Butterfly Species of the Complex

Draft CCP/EA - June 2006 A-29

SPECIES PRESENCE ON THE COMPLEX 

Tawny-edged Skipper 

Polites themistocles ?

Crossline Skipper 

Polites origenes ?

Long Dash 

Polites mystic ?

Southern Broken Dash 

Wallengrenia otho ?

Little Glassywing 

Pompeius verna ?

Sachem 

Atalopedes campestris ?

Delaware Skipper 

Atrytone logan ?

Hobomok Skipper 

Poanes hobomok Yes 

Broad-winged Skipper 

Poanes viator zizaniae Yes 

Two-spotted Skipper 

Euphyes bimacula ?

Dun Skipper 

Euphyes vestris ?

Dusted Skipper 

Atrytonopsis hianna Yes 

Salt Marsh Skipper 

Panoquina panoquin Yes 

Butterfly Species of the Complex
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 A-29

Appendix A

A-30 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Birds 

Common Loon (Sc) 

Gavia immer

Northern Goshawk (Sc) 

Accipiter gentilis

Common Tern* (St) 

Sterna hirundo

Sedge Wren (St) 

Cistothorus platensis

Pied-billed Grebe* (St) 

Podilymbus podiceps

Red-shouldered Hawk* (Sc) 

Buteo lineatus

Least Tern* (St) 

Sterna albifrons

Loggerhead Shrike (Se) 

Lanius ludovicianus

American Bittern* (Sc) 

Botaurus lentiginosus

Golden Eagle (Se) 

Aquila chrysaetos

Black Tern (Se) 

Chlidonias nigra

Golden-winged Warbler (Sc) 

Vermivora chrysoptera

Least Bittern* (St) 

Ixobrychus exilis

Peregrine Falcon (Se) 

Falco peregrinus

Black Skimmer (Sc) 

Rynchops niger

Cerulean Warbler (Sc) 

Dendroica cerulea

Osprey* (Sc) 

Pandion haliaetus

Black Rail (Se) 

Laterallus jamaicensis

Short-eared Owl (Se) 

Asio flammeus

Yellow-breasted Chat (Sc)

Icteria virens 

Bald Eagle (Ft, St) 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

King Rail (St) 

Rallus elegans

Common Nighthawk* (Sc) 

Chordeiles minor

Grasshopper Sparrow (Sc) 

Ammodramus savannarum 

Northern Harrier* (St) 

Circus cyaneus

Piping Plover* (Ft, Se) 

Charadrius melodus

Whip-poor-will* (Sc) 

Caprimulgus vociferus

Seaside Sparrow* (Sc)

Ammospiza maritima 

Sharp-shinned Hawk (Sc) 

Accipiter striatus

Upland Sandpiper (St) 

Bartramia longicauda

Red-headed Woodpecker* (Sc) 

Melanerpes erythrocephalus

Vesper Sparrow (Sc)

Pooecetes gramineus 

Cooper’s Hawk* (Sc) 

Accipiter cooperii

Roseate Tern (Fe, Se) 

Sterna dougallii

Horned Lark* (Sc) 

Eremophila alpestris

Mammals, Reptiles, Amphibians, Butterflies 

New England Cottontail (Sc) 

Sylvilagus transitionalis

Kemp’s Ridley (Fe, Se) 

Lepidochelys kempi

Eastern Hognose Snake (Sc) 

Heterodon platyrhinos

Hessel’s Hairstreak (Se) 

Callophrys hesseli

Harbor Porpoise (Sc) 

Phocoena phocoena

Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Ft, St) 

Caretta caretta

Marbled Salamander (Sc) 

Ambystoma opacum

Frosted Elfin (St) 

Callophrys irus

Eastern Mud Turtle (Se) 

Kinosternon subrubrum

Leatherback Sea Turtle (Fe, Se) 

Dermochelys coriacea

Tiger Salamander (Se) 

Ambystoma tigrinum

Henry’s Elfin (Sc) 

Callophrys henrici

Wood Turtle (Sc) 

Clemmys insculpta

Green Sea Turtle (Ft, St) 

Chelonia mydas

Eastern Spadefoot Toad (Sc) 

Scaphiopus holbrooki

Spotted Turtle (Sc) 

Clemmys guttata

Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Fe, Se) 

Eretmochelys imbricata

Northern Cricket Frog (Se) 

Acris crepitans

Eastern Box Turtle (Sc) 

Terrapene carolina 

Worm Snake (Sc) 

Carphophis amoenus

Southern Leopard Frog (Sc) 

Rana sphenocephala

Fe=Federally endangered Ft=Federally threatened Se=State endangered 

St=State threatened Sc=State species of special concern 

Threatened or Endangered Species

Threatened or Endangered Species
Appendix A

A-30 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Threatened or Endangered Species

Draft CCP/EA - June 2006 A-31

Threatened or Endangered Species

Plants 

Sandplain Gerardia (Fe, Se) 

Agalinis acuta

Small-Flowered Pearlwort (Se) 

Sagina decumbens

Flax-Leaf White-Top (St) 

Aster solidagineus

Swamp Sunflower (St) 

Helianthus angustifolius

Little-Leaf Tick Trefoil (St) 

Desmodium ciliare

Seabeach Knotweed (Se) 

Polygonum glaucum

Stiff Tick-Trefoil (Se) 

Desmodium obtusum

Water Pigmy Weed (Se) 

Crassula aquatica

Round-Leaf Boneset (Se) 

Eupatorium rotundifolium var 

ovatum

Swamp Cottonwood (St) 

Populus heterophylla

Northern Blazing Star (St) 

Liatris borealis

Silver Aster (Se) 

Aster concolor

Coast Flatsedge (Se) 

Cyperus polystachyos var 

texensis

Rough Rush Grass (Se) 

Sporobolus clandestinus

Sandplain Wild Flax (St) 

Linum intercursum

Showy Aster (St) 

Aster spectabilis

Bushy Rockrose (St) 

Helianthemum dumosum

Marsh Straw Sedge (St) 

Carex hormathodes

Southern Yellow Flax (St) 

Linum medum var texanum

Velvety Lespedeza (St) 

Lespedeza stuevei

Stargrass (St) 

Aletris farinosa

Few-Flowered Nutrush (Se) 

Scleria pauciflora var caroliniana

Opelousa Smartweed (St) 

Polygonum hydropiperoides var 

opelousanum

Slender Pinweed (St) 

Lechea tenuifolia

Spring Ladies-Tresses (Se) 

Spiranthes vernalis

Fe=Federally endangered Ft=Federally threatened Se=State endangered St=State threatened Sc=State species of special concern
Appendix B

Federal Laws and Mandates

Bald eagles are a federal- and state-threatened species. They principally use the refuges 

while migrating or wintering, and are associated with aquatic or wetland habitats and 

their adjacent terrestrial borders.

© Janet C. Zinn

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 B-1

Federal Laws and Mandates

Americans With 

Disabilities Act 1992

This Act prohibits discrimination in public accommodations and services of 

individuals based on disability.

Clean Air Act The primary objective of the Clean Air Act is to establish Federal standards 

for various pollutants from both stationary and mobile sources and to 

provide for the regulation of polluting emissions via state implementation 

plans. In addition, the amendments are designed to prevent significant 

deterioration in certain areas where air quality exceeds national standards, 

and to provide for improved air quality in areas which do not meet Federal 

standards (“nonattainment” areas). 

Federal facilities are required to comply with air quality standards to the 

same extent as nongovernmental entities. Part C of the 1977 amendments 

stipulates requirements to prevent significant deterioration of air quality 

and, in particular, to preserve air quality in national parks, national 

wilderness areas, national monuments and national seashores.

The amendments establish Class I, II and III areas, where emissions of 

particulate matter and sulfur dioxide are to be restricted. The restrictions 

are most severe in Class I areas and are progressively more lenient in Class 

II and III areas. Mandatory Class I Federal lands include all national 

wilderness areas exceeding 500 acres. Such lands may not be redesignated. 

Additionally, national wildlife refuges which exceed 10,000 acres may only be 

redesignated by States as Class I or Class II areas. 

Federal land managers are charged with direct responsibility to protect the 

air quality and related values (including visibility) of Class I lands and to 

consider, in consultation with EPA, whether proposed industrial facilities 

will have an adverse impact on these values. Federal land managers are also 

required to determine whether existing industrial sources of air pollution 

must be retrofitted to reduce impacts on Class I areas to acceptable levels.

Clean Water Act 1977 This Act requires consultation with the Corps of Engineers (404 permits) for 

major wetland modifications.

Emergency Wetland 

Resources Act of 1986 

This Act authorized the purchase of wetlands from Land and Water 

Conservation Fund moneys, removing a prior prohibition on such 

acquisitions. The Act also requires the Secretary to establish a National 

Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan, requires the States to include wetlands 

in their Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans, and transfers to the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Fund amount equal to import duties on arms 

and ammunition. 
Appendix B

B-2 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Endangered Species 

Act of 1973

(16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 

Stat. 884), as amended.

Public Law 93-205, approved December 28, 1973, repealed the Endangered 

Species Conservation Act of December 5, 1969 (P.L. 91-135, 83 Stat. 275). 

The 1969 act had amended the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 

October 15, 1966 (P.L. 89-669, 80 Stat. 926). The 1973 Endangered Species 

Act provided for the conservation of ecosystems upon which threatened and 

endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants depend, both through Federal 

action and by encouraging the establishment of State programs. The Act:

•	 Authorizes the determination and listing of species as endangered and 

threatened;

•	 Prohibits unauthorized taking, possession, sale, and transport of endangered 

species;

•	 Provides authority to acquire land for the conservation of listed species, using 

land and water conservation funds;

•	 Authorizes establishment of cooperative agreements and grants-in-aid to States 

that establish and maintain active and adequate programs for endangered and 

threatened wildlife and plants;

•	 Authorizes the assessment of civil and criminal penalties for violating the Act or 

regulations; and

•	 Authorizes the payment of rewards to anyone furnishing information leading 

to arrest and conviction for any violation of the Act of any regulation issued 

thereunder.

Environmental 

Education Act of 1990

(20 U.S.C. 5501-5510; 

104 Stat. 3325)

Public Law 101-619, signed November 16, 1990, established the Office of 

Environmental Education within the Environmental Protection Agency to 

develop and administer a Federal environmental education program.

Responsibilities of the Office include developing and supporting programs 

to improve understanding of the natural and developed environment, and 

the relationships between humans and their environment; supporting the 

dissemination of educational materials; developing and supporting training 

programs and environmental education seminars; managing a Federal grant 

program; and administering an environmental internship and fellowship 

program. The Office is required to develop and support environmental 

programs in consultation with other Federal natural resource management 

agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Executive Order 

11988, Floodplain 

Management

The purpose of this Executive Order, signed May 24, 1977, is to prevent 

Federal agencies from contributing to the adverse impacts associated with 

occupancy and modification of floodplains. In the course of fulfilling their 

respective authorities, Federal agencies shall take action to reduce the risk 

of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and 

welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served 

by floodplains.

Executive Order 12898, 

Environmental Justice

The purpose of this Executive Order, signed on February 11, 1994, requires 

Federal agencies to consider the effects of projects and policies on minority 

and lower income populations.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 B-3

Federal Laws and Mandates

Executive Order 13112: 

Invasive Species 

The purpose of this Executive Order, signed on February 3, 1999, is to 

prevent the introduction of invasive species and provide for their control, 

as well as to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts 

that invasive species cause. Under this Executive Order Federal agencies 

whose actions may affect the status of invasive species shall: (1) identify 

such actions, (2) use relevant programs and authorities to prevent, control, 

monitor, and research such species, and (3) not authorize, fund, or carry 

out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction 

or spread of invasive species in the United States or elsewhere. Federal 

agencies shall pursue these duties in consultation with the Invasive Species 

Council, consistent with the Invasive Species Management Plan.

Executive Order 13186, 

Responsibilities of 

Federal Agencies to 

Protect Migratory 

Birds

The purpose of this Executive Order, signed January 10, 2001 instructs 

Federal agencies to conserve migratory birds by several means, including 

the incorporation of strategies and recommendations found in Partners 

in Flight Bird Conservation Plans, the North American Waterfowl Plan, 

the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, and the United States 

Shorebird Conservation Plan, into agency management plans and guidance 

documents.

Federal Advisory 

Committee Act

The purpose of this Act is to authorize the establishment of a system 

governing the creation and operation of advisory committees in the executive 

branch of the Federal Government and for other purposes. Meetings held 

exclusively between federal officials and elected members of state, local and 

tribal governments, or their designated employees, where the purpose of the 

meetings is to exchange views, information or advice on the management or 

implementation of federal programs with intergovernmental responsibilities, 

are excluded.

Fish and Wildlife Act 

of 1956 

The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 establishes a comprehensive national fish, 

shellfish, and wildlife resources policy with emphasis on the commercial 

fishing industry but also with a direction to administer the Act with 

regard to the inherent right of every citizen and resident to fish for 

pleasure, enjoyment, and betterment and to maintain and increase public 

opportunities for recreational use of fish and wildlife resources. 

The 1998 amendments to the Act modified the powers of the Secretary 

of Interior in regard to volunteer service, community partnerships and 

education programs.

Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Act of 

1980

(16 USC 661-667e), as 

amended.

This Act requires the Service to monitor non-gamebird species, identify 

species of management concern, and implement conservation measures to 

preclude the need for listing under ESA.

Fish and Wildlife 

Improvement Act of 

1978

This act was passed to improve the administration of fish and wildlife 

programs and amends several earlier laws, including the Refuge Recreation 

Act, the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, and the Fish and 

Wildlife Act of 1956. It authorizes the Secretary to accept gifts and bequests 

of real and personal property on behalf of the United States. It also 

authorizes the use of volunteers on Service projects and appropriations to 

carry out volunteer programs.
Appendix B

B-4 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Freedom of 

Information Act

This Act requires all Federal agencies to make available to the public for 

inspection and copying administrative staff manuals and staff instructions, 

official, published and unpublished policy statements, final orders deciding 

case adjudication, and other documents. It also requires the party seeking 

the information to pay reasonable search and duplication costs.

Historic Preservation 

Acts 

There are various laws for the preservation of historic sites and objects.

Antiquities Act

(16 U.S.C. 431 - 433)

The Act of June 8, 1906, (34 Stat. 225) authorizes the President to designate 

as National Monuments objects or areas of historic or scientific interest on 

lands owned or controlled by the United States. The Act required that a 

permit be obtained for examination of ruins, excavation of archaeological 

sites and the gathering of objects of antiquity on lands under the jurisdiction 

of the Secretaries of Interior, Agriculture, and Army, and provided penalties 

for violations.

Archaeological 

Resources 

Protection Act

(16 U.S.C. 470aa - 470ll)

Public Law 96-95, approved October 31, 1979, (93 Stat. 721) largely 

supplanted the resource protection provisions of the Antiquities Act for 

archaeological items.

This Act established detailed requirements for issuance of permits for any 

excavation for or removal of archaeological resources from Federal or Indian 

lands. It also established civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized 

excavation, removal, or damage of any such resources; for any trafficking 

in such resources removed from Federal or Indian land in violation of any 

provision of Federal law; and for interstate and foreign commerce in such 

resources acquired, transported or received in violation of any State or local 

law.

Public Law 

100-588

Approved November 3, 1988, (102 Stat. 2983) lowered the threshold value 

of artifacts triggering the felony provisions of the Act from $5,000 to $500, 

made attempting to commit an action prohibited by the Act a violation, and 

required the land managing agencies to establish public awareness programs 

regarding the value of archaeological resources to the Nation.

Archeological 

and Historic 

Preservation Act

(16 U.S.C. 469-469c)

Public Law 86-523, approved June 27, 1960, (74 Stat. 220) as amended by 

Public Law 93-291, approved May 24, 1974, (88 Stat. 174) to carry out the 

policy established by the Historic Sites Act (see below), directed Federal 

agencies to notify the Secretary of the Interior whenever they find a Federal 

or Federally assisted, licensed or permitted project may cause loss or 

destruction of significant scientific, prehistoric or archaeologic data. The Act 

authorized use of appropriated, donated and/or transferred funds for the 

recovery, protection and preservation of such data.

Historic Sites, 

Buildings and 

Antiquities Act

(16 U.S.C. 461-462, 

464-467)

The Act of August 21, 1935, (49 Stat. 666) popularly known as the Historic 

Sites Act, as amended by Public Law 89-249, approved October 9, 1965, (79 

Stat. 971) declared it a national policy to preserve historic sites and objects 

of national significance, including those located on refuges. It provided 

procedures for designation, acquisition, administration and protection of 

such sites. Among other things, National Historic and Natural Landmarks 

are designated under authority of this Act. As of January, 1989, 31 national 

wildlife refuges contained such sites.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 B-5

Federal Laws and Mandates

National Historic 

Preservation Act 

of 1966

(16 U.S.C. 470-470b, 

470c-470n)

Public Law 89-665, approved October 15, 1966, (80 Stat. 915) and repeatedly 

amended, provided for preservation of significant historical features 

(buildings, objects and sites) through a grant-in-aid program to the States. 

It established a National Register of Historic Places and a program of 

matching grants under the existing National Trust for Historic Preservation 

(16 U.S.C. 468-468d).

The Act established an Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, which 

was made a permanent independent agency in Public Law 94-422, approved 

September 28, 1976 (90 Stat. 1319). That Act also created the Historic 

Preservation Fund. Federal agencies are directed to take into account the 

effects of their actions on items or sites listed or eligible for listing in the 

National Register. As of January, 1989, 91 historic sites on national wildlife 

refuges have been placed on the National Register.

Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act 

of 1948 

This act provides funding through receipts from the sale of surplus federal 

land, appropriations from oil and gas receipts from the outer continental 

shelf, and other sources of for land acquisition under several authorities. 

Appropriations from the fund may be used for matching grants to states 

for outdoor recreation projects and for land acquisition by various federal 

agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act of 

1929

(16 U.S.C. 715-715d, 

715e,715f-715r)

This Act established the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission which 

consists of the Secretaries of the Interior (chairman), Agriculture, and 

Transportation, two members from the House of Representatives, and an exofficio member from the state in which a project is located. The Commission 

approves acquisition of land and water, or interests therein, and sets the 

priorities for acquisition of lands by the Secretary for sanctuaries or for 

other management purposes. Under this Act, to acquire lands, or interests 

therein, the state concerned must consent to such acquisition by legislation. 

Such legislation has been enacted by most states.

Migratory Bird 

Hunting and 

Conservation Stamp 

Act

(16 U.S.C. 718-718j, 48 

Stat. 452), as amended

The “Duck Stamp Act,” as this March 16, 1934, authority is commonly called, 

requires each waterfowl hunter 16 years of age or older to possess a valid 

Federal hunting stamp. Receipts from the sale of the stamp are deposited in 

a special Treasury account known as the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund 

and are not subject to appropriations.

Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act

1918

This Act designates the protection of migratory birds as a Federal 

responsibility, and enables the setting of seasons, and other regulations 

including the closing of areas, Federal or non-Federal, to the hunting of 

migratory birds.

National and 

Community Service 

Act of 1990

(42 U.S.C. 12401; 104 

Stat. 3127)

Public Law 101-610, signed November 16, 1990, authorizes several programs 

to engage citizens of the U.S. in full- and/or part-time projects designed to 

combat illiteracy and poverty, provide job skills, enhance educational skills, 

and fulfill environmental needs. Several provisions are of particular interest 

to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Appendix B

B-6 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

National 

Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969

(P.L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 

4321-4347, January 1, 

1970, 83 Stat. 852) as 

amended by P.L. 94-52, 

July 3, 1975, 89 Stat. 258, 

and P.L. 94-83, August 9, 

1975, 89 Stat. 424).

Title I of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that 

all Federal agencies prepare detailed environmental impact statements for 

“every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other 

major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human 

environment.”

The 1969 statute stipulated the factors to be considered in environmental 

impact statements, and required that Federal agencies employ an 

interdisciplinary approach in related decision-making and develop means 

to ensure that unquantified environmental values are given appropriate 

consideration, along with economic and technical considerations.

Title II of this statute requires annual reports on environmental quality from 

the President to the Congress, and established a Council on Environmental 

Quality in the Executive Office of the President with specific duties and 

functions.

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

Administration Act of 

1966

(16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) 

as amended.

This Act defines the National Wildlife Refuge System as including wildlife 

refuges, areas for protection and conservation of fish and wildlife which 

are threatened with extinction, wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife 

management areas, and waterfowl production areas. The Secretary is 

authorized to permit any use of an area provided such use is compatible 

with the major purposes for which such area was established. The purchase 

consideration for rights-of-way go into the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Fund for the acquisition of lands. By regulation, up to 40% of an area 

acquired for a migratory bird sanctuary may be opened to migratory 

bird hunting unless the Secretary finds that the taking of any species of 

migratory game birds in more than 40% of such area would be beneficial 

to the species. The Act requires an Act of Congress for the divestiture 

of lands in the system, except (1) lands acquired with Migratory Bird 

Conservation Commission funds, and (2) lands can be removed from the 

system by land exchange, or if brought into the system by a cooperative 

agreement, then pursuant to the terms of the agreement. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 B-7

Federal Laws and Mandates

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 

1997

Public Law 105-57, amends the National Wildlife System Act of 1966 (16 

U.S.C. 668dd-ee), providing guidance for management and public use of the 

Refuge System. The Act mandates that the Refuge System be consistently 

directed and managed as a national system of lands and waters devoted to 

wildlife conservation and management.

The Act establishes priorities for recreational uses of the Refuge System. 

Six wildlife-dependent uses are specifically named in the Act: hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education 

and interpretation. These activities are to be promoted on the Refuge 

System, while all non-wildlife dependant uses are subject to compatibility 

determinations. A compatible use is one which, in the sound professional 

judgment of the Refuge Manger, will not materially interfere with or detract 

from fulfillment of the Refuge System Mission or refuge purpose(s).

As stated in the Act, “The mission of the System is to administer a national 

network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.”

The Act also requires development of a comprehensive conservation plan 

for each refuge and management of each refuge consistent with the plan. 

When writing CCP, planning for expanded or new refuges, and when making 

management decisions, the Act requires effective coordination with other 

Federal agencies, state fish and wildlife or conservation agencies, and refuge 

neighbors. A refuge must also provide opportunities for public involvement 

when making a compatibility determination or developing a CCP.

New York State 

Wild Scenic and 

Recreational Rivers 

Act 

(Article 15 Title 

27, Environmental 

Conservation Law 

Implementing 

Regulations–6NYCRR 

PART 666)

The state’s Wild Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act protects those rivers of 

the state that possess outstanding scenic, ecological, recreational, historic, 

and scientific values. These attributes may include value derived from 

fish and wildlife and botanical resources, aesthetic quality, archaeological 

significance and other cultural and historic features.

State policy is to preserve designated rivers in a free flowing condition, 

protecting them from improvident development and use. This policy is 

intended to preserve the enjoyment and benefits derived from these rivers 

for present and future generations.

DEC’s regulations implementing the Wild Scenic and Recreational Rivers 

Act affect management, protection, enhancement, and control, of land use 

and development on all designated river areas in New York State.
Appendix B

B-8 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

North American 

Wetlands Conservation 

Act

(103 Stat. 1968; 16 

U.S.C. 4401-4412)

Public Law 101-233, enacted December 13, 1989, provides funding and 

administrative direction for implementation of the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan and the Tripartite Agreement on wetlands 

between Canada, U.S. and Mexico.

The Act converts the Pittman-Robertson account into a trust fund, with the 

interest available without appropriation through the year 2006 to carry out 

the programs authorized by the Act, along with an authorization for annual 

appropriation of $15 million plus an amount equal to the fines and forfeitures 

collected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Available funds may be expended, upon approval of the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Commission, for payment of not to exceed 50 percent of the 

United States share of the cost of wetlands conservation projects in Canada, 

Mexico, or the United States (or 100 percent of the cost of projects on 

Federal lands). At least 50 percent and no more than 70 percent of the funds 

received are to go to Canada and Mexico each year.

Refuge Recreation Act 

of 1962

This Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to administer refuges, 

hatcheries, and other conservation areas for recreational use, when such 

uses do not interfere with the area’s primary purposes. It authorizes 

construction and maintenance of recreational facilities and the acquisition 

of land for incidental fish and wildlife oriented recreational development or 

protection of natural resources. It also authorizes the charging of fees for 

public uses.

Northern Cardinal

© John and Karen Hollingsworth
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 B-9

Federal Laws and Mandates

Refuge Revenue 

Sharing Act

(16 U.S.C. 715s)

Section 401 of the Act of June 15, 1935, (49 Stat. 383) provided for payments 

to counties in lieu of taxes, using revenues derived from the sale of products 

from refuges.

Public Law 88-523, approved August 30, 1964, (78 Stat. 701) made major 

revisions by requiring that all revenues received from refuge products, 

such as animals, timber and minerals, or from leases or other privileges, 

be deposited in a special Treasury account and net receipts distributed to 

counties for public schools and roads.

Public Law 93-509, approved December 3, 1974, (88 Stat. 1603) required 

that moneys remaining in the fund after payments be transferred to the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Fund for land acquisition under provisions of 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Act.

Public Law 95-469, approved October 17, 1978, (92 Stat. 1319) expanded the 

revenue sharing system to include National Fish Hatcheries and Service 

research stations. It also included in the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund 

receipts from the sale of salmonid carcasses. Payments to counties were 

established as:

1) on acquired land, the greatest amount calculated on the basis of 75 cents 

per acre, three-fourths of one percent of the appraised value, or 25 percent of 

the net receipts produced from the land; and

2) on land withdrawn from the public domain, 25 percent of net receipts 

and basic payments under Public Law 94-565 (31 U.S.C. 1601-1607, 90 Stat. 

2662), payment in lieu of taxes on public lands.

This amendment also authorized appropriations to make up any difference 

between the amount in the Fund and the amount scheduled for payment in 

any year. The stipulation that payments be used for schools and roads was 

removed, but counties were required to pass payments along to other units 

of local government within the county which suffer losses in revenues due to 

the establishment of Service areas.

Rehabilitation Act of 

1973

(29 U.S.C. 794) as 

amended. 

Title 5 of P.L. 93-112 (87 Stat. 355), signed October 1, 1973, prohibits 

discrimination on the basis of handicap under any program or activity 

receiving Federal financial assistance.

Transfer of Certain 

Real Property for 

Wildlife Conservation 

Purposes Act of 1948

This Act provides that upon determination by the Administrator of the 

General Services Administration, real property no longer needed by a 

Federal agency can be transferred, without reimbursement, to the Secretary 

of the Interior if the land has particular value for migratory birds, or to a 

State agency for other wildlife conservation purposes.

Volunteer and 

Partnership 

Enhancement Act of 

1998

This Act, signed October 5, 1998, amended the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 

to promote volunteer programs and community partnerships for the benefit 

of national wildlife refuges, and for other purposes.
Appendix B

B-10 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Wilderness Act of 1964 Public Law 88-577, approved September 3, 1964, directed the Secretary of 

the Interior, within 10 years, to review every roadless area of 5,000 or more 

acres and every roadless island (regardless of size) within National Wildlife 

Refuge and National Park Systems for inclusion in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System.
Appendix C

Compatibility Determinations

Wildlife Observation and Photography, Environmental Education and 

Interpretation...................................................................................... C-1

White-Tailed Deer Hunting............................................................... C-15

Waterfowl Hunting (Resident Canada Geese) .............................. C-23

Sport Fishing ....................................................................................... C-29

Non-Motorized Boating (Oyster Bay)............................................. C-35

Non-Motorized Boating (Wertheim) ............................................... C-39

Fish Stocking....................................................................................... C-43

Research by Non-Service Personnel ............................................. C-47

Beach Use/Sunbathing ..................................................................... C-53

Mosquito Management..................................................................... C-57





















Open marsh water management areas

Suffolk County Vector Control

Wildlife Observation and Photography, Environmental Education and Interpretation

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 C-1

Compatibility Determination

Use

Wildlife Observation and Photography, Environmental Education and Interpretation

Refuge Name

Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Dates Established

Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge 1947

Elizabeth A. Morton National Wildlife Refuge 1954

Conscience Point National Wildlife Refuge 1964

Target Rock National Wildlife Refuge 1967

Amagansett National Wildlife Refuge 1968

Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge 1968

Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge 1968

Lido Beach Wildlife Management Area 1969

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities

In 1947, Cecile and Maurice Wertheim donated land they had maintained as a private waterfowl 

hunting reserve to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, we, our). We established the Wertheim 

refuge under these authorities: the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. §715d) and the Refuge 

Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. §460k-1). Between 1954 and 1968, we also established these refuges under the 

authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act: the Conscience Point, Elizabeth A. Morton, Oyster 

Bay, Seatuck, and Target Rock refuges. We acquired the property for the Amagansett refuge in 1968 by 

the “Transfer of certain real property for wildlife conservation purposes; reservation of rights” (16 U.S.C 

§667b). Under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. §661), we established the 

Lido Beach Wildlife Management Area in the Town of Hempstead in December 1969. 

Refuge Purposes

	 “...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” (16 U.S.C. 

§715d).

	 “...incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development” (16 U.S.C. §460k-1).

	 “the protection of natural resources” (16 U.S.C. §460k-1).

	 “the conservation of endangered species or threatened species...” (16 U.S.C. §460k-1).

	 “...their particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program” (16 U.S.C §667b).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission

“The mission of the System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (Pub. L. 

105–57; 111 Stat. 1252).

Description of Use

(a) What is this use? Is it a priority public use? Yes. The uses are “wildlife observation and 

photography and environmental education and interpretation,” four of the six priority uses of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System (16 U.S.C. 668dd–668ee, as amended by Pub. L. 105–57; 111 Stat. 1252). 

Pedestrian travel to help facilitate these priority public uses on the Long Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendix C

C-2 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Complex (Complex) can include walking, cross country skiing, and snowshoeing which are not priority 

public uses.

(b) Where would the use be conducted? Wildlife observation and photography and environmental 

education and interpretation will be limited to established nature trails and beaches on these refuges: 

Amagansett, Morton, Oyster Bay, Target Rock, and Wertheim.

Amagansett refuge, in the Town of Easthampton, NY, consists of 36 acres of barrier beach habitat, 

including a double dune system, swales, and sandy beach (figure C-1). The refuge boundary extends to the 

mean high waterline of the Atlantic Ocean. In the summer of 2005, a pair of piping plovers (Charadrius 

melodus) nested on the beachfront for the first time in several years, and successfully fledged two young. 

We erected signs and symbolic fencing around the nesting area, to comply with our piping plover recovery 

plan (USFWS 1996). The State of New York lists piping plovers as endangered. The Federal Government 

lists as threatened the Atlantic Coast population of piping plovers. At Amagansett refuge, access for these 

priority uses would be restricted to the beachfront.

The 187 acre Morton refuge in the Town of Southampton, NY, encompasses a variety of habitats. Its 

beaches extend to the mean high waterline of the Noyack and Little Peconic bays. We would permit 

wildlife observation and photography along the 1.2 mile Wild Birds Nature Trail (figure C-2) year-round 

and along the 1.5 mile peninsula between the bays.

Sandy and rocky beaches fringe that peninsula, and provide nesting habitat for ospreys, piping plovers, 

and least terns between April 1 and August 31 each year. In 2005, six pairs of piping plover nested at the 

refuge, but due to predation and inclement weather, they fledged only four young. In the last decade, 

piping plovers have nested at the Morton refuge each year. The least tern colony at the refuge in 2005 

succeeded in producing 28 fledglings, down from the 60 young fledged in 2003. Due to the federal and 

state listing status of these migratory shorebirds, walking in the nesting areas would be restricted.

The Target Rock refuge, located in Huntington, NY, includes 80 acres of mature oak-hickory forest, tidal 

wetlands and rocky beach habitats. The beach at Target Rock provides important foraging habitat for 

piping plovers. As many as two pairs of piping plovers have nested on the sandy beach next to refuge 

property, most recently in 2000. Historically, portions of that beach have been closed to reduce the 

disturbance of belted kingfishers and bank swallows nesting on the adjacent cliffs. We would allow foot 

access for these priority uses along the 1 mile Warbler’s Loop Trail, the 0.75 mile Rocky Beach Trail, and 

the 0.5 mile Gardener’s Path (figure C-3). We would prohibit walking near nesting areas.

Wertheim refuge, located in Shirley, NY, serves as the headquarters for the Long Island National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex. Wertheim is the largest refuge in the Complex, and encompasses 2,550 acres of forests, 

grasslands and wetlands. We would permit these priority uses along the White Oak Nature Trail (the 1.5 

mile short loop and the 3.0 mile long loop) and on the 1 mile loop Indian Landing Tail (figure C-4). Our 

long-term plan for accommodating these priority uses includes constructing a visitor center on the east 

side of the Carmans River and adding trails, observation blinds, and an open-air education pavilion.

(c) When would the use be conducted? All open refuge units operate each day from half an hour before 

sunrise to half an hour after sunset (i.e., daylight hours only), unless otherwise specified.

We would open the Amagansett refuge beachfront to wildlife observation, photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation during the non-nesting season, from September 1 through March 31. 

From April 1 to August 31, we may close parts of the beachfront to public entry. We will erect symbolic 

fencing and post those areas with “Nesting Area Closed” signs. That closure will help ensure high-quality, 

undisturbed nesting habitat for piping plovers and other beach nesting migratory birds of management 
Wildlife Observation and Photography, Environmental Education and Interpretation

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 C-3

concern (e.g., least terns). We will prohibit walking on and over the dunes, to protect the fragile dune 

ecosystem. 

At the Morton refuge, we would open the Wild Birds Nature Trail to the beach, including the loop. The 

1.5 mile beachfront peninsula would be available for use during the non-nesting season, from September 1 

through March 31, during trail hours. From April 1 to August 31, we will close the beachfront to all public 

entry. That closure will help ensure high-quality, undisturbed nesting habitat for piping plovers and other 

beach nesting migratory birds of management concern (e.g., least terns).

At Target Rock refuge, the Warbler’s Loop and Gardener’s Path would be open year-round to walking 

for these priority uses during daylight hours only, from half an hour before sunrise to half an hour after 

sunset. The Rocky Beach Trail would be open for walking during the non-nesting season, from September 

1 through March 31, during trail hours. From April 1 to August 31, we will close a quarter-mile of the trail 

(beachfront) to all public entry. That closure will help ensure high-quality, undisturbed nesting habitat for 

piping plovers and other beach nesting migratory birds of management concern (e.g., least terns, belted 

kingfishers, and bank swallows). At the Wertheim refuge, the White Oak and Indian Landing Trails would 

be open year-round to pedestrians for these four priority uses from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., except during 

hunting seasons. 

(d) How would the use be conducted? We would conduct these four priority uses much as we conduct 

them today. We allow them only on designated nature trails and beachfront areas. The dunes and 

vegetated areas on the Complex, including the salt marsh, are closed to public entry throughout the year. 

Walking on the dunes can harm stabilizing vegetation and result in the erosion and loss of important 

wildlife habitat. “Closed Area” signs mark areas closed to public entry. 

Visitors who want to walk the trails typically enter the refuges by their entrance roads or by boats. We 

charge a minimal entrance fee for all persons entering the Morton or Target Rock refuges. We estimate 

the annual visitation for each refuge at 85,550 visitors for Wertheim, 73,400 for Target Rock, 105,500 for 

Morton, and 36,000 for Amagansett. We attribute 77 percent of that total to visitors who engage in these 

four priority uses.

We do not limit the numbers of pedestrians at each refuge. Our recent observations and discussions with 

refuge visitors indicate their number at any one time does not typically exceed 100 per refuge. We require 

organized groups of more than 10 to obtain a Special Use Permit (SUP) before entering the refuge. To 

gain better estimates of refuge visitation, beginning in 2007, refuge staff would record the numbers of 

pedestrians seen during patrols, the types of access, user interactions, and potential safety concerns. We 

would install safety and information signs as necessary. We will conduct these four priority uses on the 

Complex and ensure their compatibility in accordance with the stipulations below. 

(e) Why is this use being proposed? Wildlife observation and photography and environmental education 

and interpretation are four of the six priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. If 

compatible, they are to receive enhanced consideration over other general public uses.

These four priority uses will provide compatible educational and recreational opportunities for visitors to 

enjoy refuge resources and improve their understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife, wild lands 

ecology, wildlife management, and the relationships of plant and animal populations in the ecosystem. 

Refuge visitors will better understand the problems facing our wildlife and wild lands resources, realize 

what effect the public has on wildlife resources, and learn more about the Service role in conservation. 

They will better understand the biological facts underlying our management programs, and appreciate 

why wildlife and wild lands are important. Likewise, these four priority uses will provide opportunities for 

visitors to observe wildlife habitats firsthand and learn about wildlife and wild lands at their own pace in 
Appendix C

C-4 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

an unstructured environment. Our authorizing these uses will produce more informed public advocacy of 

Service programs. 

Foot travel is a fundamental method for the public to access the Complex. It is a historic and relatively 

unobtrusive means to view plants and wildlife in representative natural landscapes and to reach fishing 

sites. Walking, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing are activities that can help facilitate these priority 

public uses. For example, cross-country skis and snowshoes allow visitors to access existing trails at 

Wertheim, Morton, and Target Rock during the winter months when there is snow on the ground, and 

offer a means to engage in wildlife observation and other priority wildlife-dependent public uses in areas 

inaccessible by foot.

Professional and amateur photographers will gain opportunities to photograph wildlife in their natural 

habitats. Those opportunities obviously will result in increased publicity and advocacy for Service 

programs. They will provide wholesome, safe, outdoor recreation in a scenic setting, enticing those who 

come solely for recreation to participate in the educational aspects of our public use program and become 

advocates for the Refuge System and the Service.

Availability of Resources 

The continuation of access accommodating public use at the current level, no more than 100 visitors at any 

one time on each refuge, would not require a significant increase in maintenance or visitor services staff 

expenditures (outdoor recreation planner or law enforcement). Staff time associated with administration 

of this use is related to maintaining kiosks, gates, sign-posting, providing information to the public about 

the use, conducting visitor surveys, analyzing visitor use patterns, and monitoring the effects of the 

use on refuge resources. A lead Outdoor Recreation Planner would administer the program. A Wildlife 

Biologist assisted by seasonal interns would monitor the environmental effects of public access. A Park 

Ranger would conduct law enforcement activities to provide for visitor safety and resource protection. 

Maintenance of trails and facilities are costs related to accommodating these uses. The major portion 

of the funds needed to support the four priority uses is in the form of salaries to maintain the trails and 

to provide protection and monitoring; additional funds are needed for maintenance materials and other 

supplies. At Wertheim, Morton and Target Rock, there are bathrooms which are maintained and open 

year-round for public users of the trail system. Additionally, there are kiosks at Wertheim, Morton and 

Target Rock which provide important information to help guide the users to locations of interest. The 

kiosks receive regular maintenance and brochure replenishment. It is estimated that approximately one 

day per week is spent at each location conducting routine maintenance, trail clearing, and general upkeep. 

The CCP prescribes additional visitor facilities and activities. The estimated cost of constructing 

and maintaining these structures is detailed below. However, the development of many of the CCP’s 

strategies is dependent upon receiving adequate funding and staffing. The Complex will continue to 

manage these activities at current levels until this funding is made available. 

New Construction Estimated Costs

Complex visitor facility at Wertheim NWR............................................................................$5,700,000

New interpretive trails at Wertheim NWR ..............................................................................$150,000

New outdoor classroom at Wertheim NWR ..............................................................................$150,000

Signage for new facilities (interpretive, directional and regulatory).....................................$200,000

Interpretive kiosk at Amagansett NWR......................................................................................$40,000

Total.............................................................................................................................................$6,240,000

Annual, recurring costs include the equipment, materials and supplies associated with maintaining the 

Complex’s current and future visitor facilities. In addition, informational and educational products that 
Wildlife Observation and Photography, Environmental Education and Interpretation

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 C-5

are produced and disseminated on a routine basis are incorporated in the following cost analysis. The 

maintenance costs are partially offset by the collection of entrance fees at Elizabeth A. Morton and Target 

Rock NWRs, approximately $8,000 in fees are collected annually.

Annual (recurring costs) Estimated Costs

Trail and facility maintenance for public users at Wertheim NWR .........................................$18,000

Trail and facility maintenance for public users at Morton NWR............................................... $9,000

Trail and facility maintenance for public users at Target Rock NWR...................................... $9,000

Equipment and supplies (including brochures and trail guides) ..............................................$20,000

Total..................................................................................................................................................$56,000

Existing staff will administer the visitor services program for the Complex. Additional staff may be 

required in the future as the program expands with a visitor facility.

Staffing Annual Salary

Existing staff costs to administer the program $225,000

*FY06 Complex Budget

Salaries ........................................ $763,620

Fixed Costs.................................. $117,291

Annual Maintenance .................... $31,200

Total............................................. $912,111

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

Wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation can affect the wildlife 

resource positively or negatively. A positive effect of public involvement in these priority public uses will 

be a better appreciation and more complete understanding of the refuge wildlife and habitats. That can 

translate into more widespread, stronger support for the Complex, the Refuge System and the Service. 

Pedestrian travel (walking, cross country skiing, and snowshoeing) as conducted on Long Island NWR 

Complex has not been studied in a rigorous fashion. Pedestrian travel has the potential of impacting 

shorebird, waterfowl, marshbirds and other migratory bird populations feeding and resting near the trails 

and on beaches during certain times of the year. Use of upland trails is more likely to impact songbirds 

than other migratory birds. Human disturbance to migratory birds has been documented in many studies 

in different locations. Since skiing and snowshoeing are winter activities that require snow, there are 

fewer adverse impacts to the Complex’s species of concern compared to activities like jogging, bicycling, 

and horseback riding.

Direct Impacts

Direct impacts have an immediate affect on wildlife. We expect those impacts to include the presence of 

humans disturbing wildlife, which typically results in a temporary displacement without long-term effects 

on individuals or populations. Some species will avoid the areas people frequent, such as the developed 

trails and the buildings, while others seem unaffected by or even drawn to the presence of humans. 

Overall, those effects should not be significant, because most of the refuge will experience minimal public 

use.

Conflicts arise when migratory birds and humans are present in the same areas (Boyle and Samson 

1985). Response of wildlife to human activities includes: departure from site (Owen 1973, Burger 1981, 

Korschgen et al 1985, Henson and Grant 1991, Kahl 1991, Klein 1993), use of suboptimal habitat (Erwin 

1980, Williams and Forbes 1980), altered behavior (Burger 1981, Korschen et al. 1985, Morton et al. 

1989, Ward and Stehn 1989, Havera et al. 1992, Klein 1993), and increase in energy expenditure (Morton 

et al. 1989, Belanger and Bedard 1990). McNeil et al. (1992) found that many waterfowl species avoid 
Appendix C

C-6 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

disturbance by feeding at night instead of during the day. The location of recreational activities impacts 

species in different ways. Miller et al. (1998) found that nesting success was lower near recreational trails, 

where human activity was common, than at greater distances from the trails. A number of species have 

shown greater reactions when pedestrian use occurred off trail (Miller, 1998). In addition, Burger (1981) 

found that wading birds were extremely sensitive to disturbance in the northeastern U.S. In regard 

to waterfowl, Klein (1989) found migratory dabbling ducks to be the most sensitive to disturbance and 

migrant ducks to be more sensitive when they first arrived, in the late fall, than later in winter. She also 

found gulls and sandpipers to be apparently insensitive to human disturbance, with Burger (1981) finding 

the same to be true for various gull species. 

For songbirds, Gutzwiller et al. (1997) found that singing behavior of some species was altered by 

low levels of human intrusion. Pedestrian travel can impact normal behavioral activities, including 

feeding, reproductive, and social behavior. Studies have shown that ducks and shorebirds are sensitive 

to pedestrian activity (Burger 1981, 1986). Resident waterbirds tend to be less sensitive to human 

disturbance than migrants, and migrant ducks are particularly sensitive when they first arrive (Klein 

1993). In areas where human activity is common, birds tolerated closer approaches than in areas receiving 

less activity. 

Indirect Impacts

People can be vectors for invasive plants by moving seeds or other propagules from one area to another. 

Once established, invasive plants can out-compete native plants, thereby altering habitats and indirectly 

impacting wildlife. The threat of invasive plant establishment will always be an issue requiring annual 

monitoring and treatment when necessary. Our staff will work at eradicating invasive plants and 

educating the visiting public.

Cumulative Impacts

Impacts may be minor when we consider them alone, but may become important when we consider them 

collectively. Our principal concern is repeated disruptions of nesting, resting, or foraging birds. 

Our knowledge and observations of the affected areas show no evidence that these four, priority, wildlifedependent uses cumulatively will adversely affect the wildlife resource. Private landowners have allowed 

the public to engage in these wildlife-dependent uses for many years without discernible negative 

effects. However, opening refuge lands to public use can often result in littering, vandalism, or other 

illegal activities on the refuges. Although we do not expect substantial cumulative impact from these four 

priority uses in the near term, it will be important for refuge staff to monitor those uses and, if necessary, 

respond to conserve high-quality wildlife resources.

Refuge staff, in collaboration with volunteers, will monitor and evaluate the effects of these priority 

public uses to discern and respond to any unacceptable impacts on wildlife or habitats. To mitigate those 

impacts, the refuge will close areas where such birds as piping plovers, terns, colonial water birds or 

ospreys are nesting. We expect no additional effects from providing these four priority uses.

Public Review and Comment

We are publishing this compatibility determination for review concurrently with our draft comprehensive 

conservation plan (CCP) and its environmental assessment. We have discussed these uses at CCP public 

meetings, and our Planning Update identifies them. We have already received several comments. Another 

opportunity for public comment will run concurrently with the public review and comment period of the 

CCP.
Wildlife Observation and Photography, Environmental Education and Interpretation

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 C-7

Determination

 Use is not compatible

X Use is compatible, with the following stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

	 We will permit these four priority uses on the Morton and Target Rock refuges beachfronts only from 

September 1 through March 31. 

	 We will install signs for visitor information, safety, and resource protection.

	 We will conduct an outreach program to promote public awareness and compliance with public use regulations.

	 We will limit maximum group size to 10 persons to promote public safety, accommodate other users, and limit 

wildlife disturbance.

	 We will conduct baseline inventories of the physical condition of the beachfront, dunes, and trail systems biannually to monitor how pedestrian use affects plant life. Use any changes in physical conditions to identify any 

management interventions required to protect refuge resources.

	 We will conduct biological inventories to provide baseline information for measuring change. If monitoring and 

evaluation of the use indicate that compatibility criteria are being exceeded, take appropriate action to restore 

compatibility, including modifying or discontinuing the use.

	 We will conduct routine law enforcement patrols throughout the year. The patrols will promote compliance with 

refuge regulations, monitor public use patterns and public safety, and document visitor interaction. The patrols 

will record visitor numbers, visitor activities, and activity locations to document current and future levels of 

refuge use.

Justification

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105–57) identifies six legitimate 

and appropriate uses of wildlife refuges: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation. Where these uses have been determined compatible, they 

are to receive enhanced consideration over other uses in planning and management. 

We have determined four of the six priority uses to be compatible at their current levels and under the 

stipulations listed above. Walking, snowshoeing and cross-country skiing are only means of facilitating 

these priority public uses. Under those conditions, we do not expect them to materially interfere with or 

detract from the mission of the System or diminish the purposes for which the refuges were established; 

nor do we expect them to cause significant adverse effects on refuge resources or cause any undue 

administrative burden.
Appendix C

C-8 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Project Leader 

(Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Regional Chief 

(Signature) (Date)

Mandatory 15 year Re-evaluation Date 

 (Date)

Literature Cited

Belanger, L., and J. Bedard. 1990. Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging snow geese. 

Journal of Wildlife Management. 54:36.

Boyle, S.A., F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of nonconsumptive recreation on wildlife: A review. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 13:110.

Burger, J. 1981. The effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biological Conservation. 21:231-241.

Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human activity on shorebirds in two coastal bays in northeastern United 

States. Environmental Conservation. 13:123-130.

Erwin, R.M. 1980. Breeding habitat by colonially nesting water birds in 2 mid-Atlantic U.S. regions under 

different regimes of human disturbance. Biological Conservation. 18:39-51.

Gutzwiller, K.J., R.T. Wiedenmann, K.L. Clements. 1997. Does human intrusion alter the seasonal timing 

of avian song during breeding periods? Auk. 114:55-65.

Havera, S.P., L.R. Boens, M.M. Georgi, and R. T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl on 

Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 20:290-298.

Henson, P.T., and A. Grant. 1991. The effects of human disturbance on trumpeter swan breeding behavior. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin. 19:248-257.

Kahl, R. 1991. Boating disturbance of canvasbacks during migration at Lake Poygan, Wisconsin. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin. 19:242-248.

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 21:31-

39.

Korschen, C.E., L.S. George, and W.L. Green. 1985. Disturbance of diving ducks by boaters on 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 215 - Appendix G: Final Compatibility Determinations a 

migrational staging area. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 13:290-296.

McNeil, Raymond; Pierre Drapeau; John D. Goss-Custard. 1992. The occurrence and adaptive 

significance of nocturnal habitats in waterfowl. Biological Review. 67: 381-419.
Wildlife Observation and Photography, Environmental Education and Interpretation

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 C-9

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird 

communities. Ecological Applications. 8(1) 162-169.

Morton, J.M., A.C. Fowler, and R.L. Kirkpatrick. 1989. Time and energy budgets of American black ducks 

in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management. 53:401-410.

Owen, M. 1973. The management of grassland areas for wintering geese. Wildfowl. 24:123-130.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) Atlantic Coast population 

revised recovery plan. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, Massachusetts. 245 pp.

Ward, D.H., and R.A. Stehn. 1989. Response of Brant and other geese to aircraft disturbance at Izembek 

Lagoon, Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Fish and Wildlife Research Center. Final 

report to the Minerals Management Service. Anchorage, Alaska. 193 pp.

Williams, G.J., and E. Forbes. 1980. The habitat and dietary preferences of dark-bellied Brant geese and 

widgeon in relation to agricultural management. Wildfowl. 31:151-157.
Appendix C

C-10 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Figure C-1. Map of the Amagansett refuge

Pedestrian access is restricted to the beachfront. If piping plovers nest in that area, it may be subject 

to additional restrictions between April 1 and August 31. Ownership to the mean high watermark 

accurately describes the refuge boundary along the waterline.

Produced by Long Island NWR, Shirley, New York

Base Map: USGS 2001 Digital Orthophotography

Vegetation Data: USFWS 1994 NVCS mapping

Refuge boundary: USFWS, Region 5, Div. of Realty 2004

Datum and projection: NAD 1983, UTM Zone 18, Meters

Map Date: 3/2006

Amagansett National Wildlife Refuge

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Suffolk County, New York

Pedestrian Access

0 0.1 0.2

Miles

0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Kilometers

1:3,650

Refuge Boundary* (36 Acres)

Map C-1

*The refuge border stops at the mean high tide line
Wildlife Observation and Photography, Environmental Education and Interpretation

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 C-11

LEGEND

Nature Trail 

1 10 Trail Stops

Parking Area 

Restrooms

Trail Head 

and Information 

Refuge Office

Phragmites 

Thicket 

Water 

Beach & Dunes 

N

Noyack Creek

Private Property

Refuge Office

Restrooms

Trail Head and 

Information

To Parking and 

Fee Information Area

Little Peconic Bay

Pond Open Field

Open Field

Maritime Forest Maritime Forest

Bottomland 

Hardwood Forest

Beach & 

Dunes

Phragmites

Phragmites

Thicket

Bottomland 

Hardwood Forest

Stream

Elizabeth A. Morton

National Wildlife Refuge

Wild Birds Nature Trail

3

2

1

6

10

9

8

5

4

7

Figure C-2. Trail map for the Morton refuge

These trails would be open to pedestrian access year-round during daylight hours only. We would 

close the beachfront (beyond trail stop 10, not shown) each year from April 1 to August 31 to provide 

undisturbed nesting habitat for piping plovers and terns.
Appendix C

C-12 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

LEGEND

Refuge Boundary

Nature Trail 

1 10 Trail Stops

Restrooms

Information Center

Refuge Office

Parking Area 

N

0 400 800 Feet

Huntington Bay

TARGET

ROCK

Target Rock Road

Harbor

Restrooms

Parking

Information

Refuge Office

Lloyd

Pond

Brackish

Gardener's Path

Target Rock

National Wildlife Refuge

Warblers’ Loop & Rocky Beach Trail

3

1 2

6

10

9

8

5

4

7

Figure C-3. Trail map for the Target Rock refuge

These trails would be open to pedestrian access year-round during daylight hours only. We would close a 

portion of the beachfront (Rocky Beach Trail) annually from April 1 to August 31 to provide undisturbed 

nesting and foraging habitat for migratory shorebirds.
Wildlife Observation and Photography, Environmental Education and Interpretation

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 C-13

ER

Wertheim NWR

White Oak Nature Trail

P

B

B

LEGEND

 ER – Entrance Road

 FR – Fire Road (No Entry)

 HQ – Refuge Office and 

Parking

 P – Observation Platform

 B – Observation Blind

 Red Maple

 Pine

 Mixed Oak/Pine

 Hardwoods

 Field

 Wetland

HQ

Carmans River

Sh

FR

FR

FR

 FR

 FR

 FR

Figure C-4. Trail maps for the 

Wertheim refuge

The White Oak (a) and Indian 

Landing (b) trails would be 

open year-round to walking 

from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., 

except in hunting seasons.

Figure C-4 (a)

Figure C-4 (b)

White-Tailed Deer Hunting

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 C-15

Compatibility Determination

Use

White-Tailed Deer Hunting

Refuge Name

Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, we, our) acquired Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge in 

1947 by donation from Cecile and Maurice Wertheim, who had maintained the area as a private reserve 

for waterfowl hunting. We acquire land for the refuge under the authorities of the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act (MBCA) (16 U.S.C. 715d) and the Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 724f(a)(4)).

Refuge Purposes

	 “...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” (16 U.S.C. 

§715d).

	 “...incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development” (16 U.S.C. §460k-1).

	 “the protection of natural resources” (16 U.S.C. §460k-1).

	 “the conservation of endangered species or threatened species...” (16 U.S.C. §460k-1).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission

“The mission of the System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (Pub. L. 

105–57; 111 Stat. 1252).

Description of Use

(a) What is this use? Is it a priority public use? The use is hunting white-tailed deer. Hunting is a 

priority public use of the National Wildlife Refuge System, under the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105–57; 111 Stat. 1282).

(b) Where would the use be conducted? We will conduct the deer hunt at the Wertheim refuge, the 

headquarters of the nine-unit Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex. We have divided that 2,550-

acre refuge into six hunting zones based on its road network and watercourses. As we acquire more tracts 

nearby, we will evaluate them for inclusion in the deer-hunting program. We may close Zone 4 to hunting 

periodically throughout the season to allow other visitors to engage in other priority public uses on the 

White Oak Nature Trail. The annual refuge hunting permit will list those closures and regulations.

(c) When would the use be conducted? Hunting will take place within the seasonal framework 

established by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC): October 

– December, archery; January weekdays, firearms. 

(d) How would the use be conducted? We would conduct the hunt in accordance with the refuge “WhiteTailed Deer Hunt Plan,” which includes the following. 

Smith Road, Montauk Highway, and Old Stump Road, respectively, form much of the eastern, northern, 

and western boundaries of the refuge. Those roads adjoin suburban development. Additional residential 

development abuts the refuge at Golden Gate Drive to the southeast, Old Barto Road to the northwest, 
Appendix C

C-16 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

and Beaver Dam Road, Meadow Lane and Burnett Lane to the southwest. To ensure public safety and 

adhere to New York State statute, we will visually delineate and enforce a 500-foot “no hunt” zone inside 

the refuge boundary. 

We will honor all state and local laws applicable to hunting, including the following New York State law.

No person shall

“...discharge a firearm or long bow within five hundred feet from a dwelling house, farm building or farm 

structure actually occupied or used, school building, school playground, or occupied factory or church”

(NYS ECL 11-0931-4(a)(2)).

We will permit hunting only for white-tailed deer on the refuge. The take will accord with state bag limits 

and seasons, although antlerless deer will be targeted, to reduce the overabundance of deer. Before the 

hunting season begins, we will determine that ratio of antlerless to antlered deer, based on refuge habitat 

management objectives and the annual deer survey. Portable tree stands are the only type permitted on 

the refuge, and hunters must remove them at the end of each day. Firearms hunters are required to wear 

a minimum of 400 square inches of blaze orange fabric visible from all sides. 

Hunters with disabilities may arrange accommodations in Zone 4. Hunters recognized by NYSDEC as 

disabled will have preference regarding the use of those areas.

All persons interested in hunting on the refuge must possess a valid state hunting license and tag(s) 

before submitting their application and non-refundable fee. We will select hunters in a random drawing. 

Before hunting on the refuge, those selected must attend a scheduled refuge hunter orientation. We 

will assess each hunter a non-transferable, non-refundable, seasonal application fee to offset the hunt’s 

administrative costs.

On arriving at the refuge for the hunt, hunters must check in with refuge personnel and display the 

following items: a state hunting license and tags, a Firearms Identification Card or License to Carry, a 

valid refuge permit, and the appropriate amount of hunter orange. Before leaving the refuge, hunters are 

required to check out at the designated refuge location.

As hunters sign in each day at the refuge office, we will provide them with a permit package of maps 

delineating hunt zones, current refuge regulations, hunt units, “no-hunt” zones, and other pertinent 

information. At all times while hunting on the refuge, hunters must have in their possession the permit 

issued by the refuge. That system will enable the refuge to control the quality and safety of the hunt. The 

signed hunting permit will comply with this “written permission” law.

“It shall be unlawful for any person to shoot, hunt, fish or trap upon the fenced, enclosed, or posted 

lands of another...without permission in writing from the owner, tenant or agent of such owner, and every 

person hunting, fishing, shooting or fowling upon such lands shall have in his possession such written 

permission when so doing” (WV Code 20-2-7).

(e) Why is this use being proposed? We proposed hunting to reduce the overpopulation of the deer on 

the refuge and provide the public with opportunities for recreation identified as one of the six priority 

wildlife-dependent public uses of the Refuge System. 

The refuge “Station Management Plan” (1992) contains a management objective with the dual strategies 

of (1) monitoring the size of the deer population and its effect on vegetation, and (2) reducing deer 

populations to levels consistent with habitat carrying capacity. Hunting has been a traditional form 

of recreation along the Carmans River corridor for generations. Before we acquired the refuge, the 
White-Tailed Deer Hunting

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 C-17

Wertheim family hunted waterfowl, small game, and deer along the lower reaches of the river. Waterfowl 

hunting continues today north of the refuge in Southaven County Park and south of the refuge in Great 

South Bay. Service policy recognizes hunting as an acceptable, traditional form of recreation, particularly 

on lands that historically supported it. We may modify opportunities for hunting on refuge lands for 

various reasons, including such considerations as maintaining wildlife populations, habitat, safety, a highquality hunting experience, or in rare instances, protecting a research population.

Habitats for wildlife have diminished considerably over the past few decades as urban and suburban 

development expanded into the wild lands remaining on Long Island. The protected lands remaining must 

support a wide variety of wildlife in a limited area. The competition among wildlife species for space and 

foraging habitat is intense, and white-tailed deer are a known source of damage to forest and grassland 

vegetation. When unchecked by predators or hunting pressures, white-tailed deer populations breed 

beyond the ability of the land to support them. Because they adapted well to suburban environments, 

their increasing abundance is especially problematic.

The availability of desirable forage and the absence of predators have allowed deer populations to thrive 

in such areas (Krausman et al. 1992). High-density herds (i.e., >30 deer /mi2) have been associated with 

damage to habitats (e.g., lack of forest regeneration and loss of woody understories), economic impacts 

(e.g., timber resources, ornamental plantings, agricultural damage, and vehicle collisions), and tickborne disease transmission (Woolf and Harder 1979, Cypher and Cypher 1988). The need for action at 

the Wertheim refuge is based principally on the negative impacts on vegetation by a high density of 

white-tailed deer (i.e., >30 deer /mi2). Browse lines and reduced woody understories are evident on the 

refuge. Deer foraging habits and preferences are known to change plant composition and structure over 

time (Porter 1991a, Van Deelan et al. 1996, Brown and Parker 1997, Augustine 1998a, Russell and Fowler 

1999). Such alterations have subsequent impacts on other wildlife, such as the richness and abundance 

of songbird species (De Calesta 1994). Several other studies (Casey and Hein 1983, McShea and Rappole 

1992) have found reduced richness or abundance of songbird species in areas with high deer densities.

In 2001, refuge personnel evaluated forest regeneration at the refuge. The results of the initial 

investigation indicate a strong disparity between seedling production and sapling survivorship on the 

refuge. That is indicative of deer over browsing negatively impacting forest regeneration rates.

Estimated Growth in the Deer Population

Before 2000, deer population estimates were approximate. However, we believe that the deer population 

began to increase substantially in the late 1980s, as suburban development increased and we added 

additional parcels of land to the refuge. Those changes eliminated hunting in areas previously hunted, and 

provided more landscaping plants as food for deer. 

Since 2000, the refuge staff has performed vehicle-based surveys to estimate deer density in November 

and December each year. Those surveys concentrated on roughly 64 percent, or 1,630 acres (2.5 mi2), 

of the refuge that we considered deer habitat, and used scientific protocols and procedures that take 

into account a number of variables. We conducted the surveys along 8.5 miles of roads that traverse the 

preferred deer habitat, encompassing approximately 2.5 square miles.

Using that survey information, which included the numbers of deer sighted and their distance from the 

road, we were able to calculate estimated deer density. Although all survey techniques contain some form 

of bias, we were able to obtain a relative sense of deer population and density in the survey area ranging 

between 62 and 108 deer/mi2

 over the last 4 years. The Patuxent Research Refuge and Brookhaven 

National Laboratory (BNL), which conduct similar vehicle-based surveys, estimate that this survey 

technique has a bias because the survey fails to count approximately 25 percent of the actual deer density. 

(H. Obrecht, USFWS, personal comm., T. Green, BNL, personal comm.). When the refuge modifies the 
Appendix C

C-18 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

actual vehicle-based survey results, we believe with scientific certainty that the deer density exceeds 

100 deer/mi2

.

To validate our vehicle-based surveys, the refuge conducted an aerial survey that incorporated infrared 

technology in February 2004. An aircraft flew over the entire refuge and counted the number of deer 

observed by infrared cameras. That survey counted 231 deer on the refuge (Bernatas 2004). Using that 

number, we were able to calculate a 93 deer/mi2 density based on 2.5 mi2 of prime deer habitat. The 

majority of the deer were concentrated in the refuge upland habitats (1,630 acres), which was the same 

area covered by the vehicle-based survey.

Aerial surveys do not assume a 100-percent detection rate, with the exception of grassland cover types, 

due to the inability to document deer under forested or closed canopies (Bernatas 2004). Usually, a 

correction factor of 10 percent to 20 percent is added to account for detection in differing forest cover 

types. Using that correction factor, deer densities ranged between 102 and 111 deer/mi2

. The deer density 

determined by aerial surveys corroborated the vehicle-based surveys. It is important to note that, even 

with the inherent variability of population estimates, the lowest deer densities reported were still double 

the recommended refuge carrying capacity of <25 deer/mi2

, or roughly 60 deer for the refuge and 

neighboring areas.

All that information leads to the conclusion that we must implement an effective deer management 

program at the Wertheim refuge. At its current density, the deer herd is negatively affecting our ability 

to achieve the refuge objective of preserving the natural diversity of plants and animals in their unique 

habitats. 

Availability of Resources 

We expect the annual cost of this program to be $24,000. Refuge staff will prepare the annual refuge 

hunting regulations leaflet, revise the hunt plan and regulations as needed, prepare annual output reports, 

and respond to public inquiries about the hunt program. Refuge staff will collaborate with and receive 

assistance from the New York Department of Environmental Conservation in checking hunters in and out 

and collecting biological information about the deer harvested. 

In addition to general staffing, we will ask Service or other authorized federal, state, county and local law 

enforcement personnel to assist during each day of the hunt. Our regional office will authorize Service 

law enforcement assistance to ensure a minimum of three refuge officers assist in administering the hunt. 

In addition to staff expenses, the refuge will incur costs for posting signs, maintaining vehicles, printing 

leaflets, and miscellaneous supplies.

Initial Costs

Delineating the No-Hunt Zone (materials)....................................... $2,500

Creating parking spaces........................................................................ 2,500

Producing hunt permits......................................................................... 2,000

Designing the hunter orientation course .......................................... $1,000

Total....................................................................................................... $8,000

Annual (recurring costs)

Hunt administration (reservations, check-in/out, check deer)....... $4,000

Law Enforcement Officer (detail, overtime)..................................... 18,000

Permit printing ....................................................................................... 1,500

Miscellaneous (signs, equipment, vehicle, etc.)................................... $500

Total..................................................................................................... $24,000
White-Tailed Deer Hunting

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 C-19

We will assess each hunter a non-transferable, non-refundable, seasonal application fee to partially offset 

the hunt’s administrative costs. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

Short-term Impacts

Hunting will cause a number of short-term impacts on refuge resources. One is increased erosion arising 

from minor damage to vegetation as hunters move about in the designated hunting zones. We will manage 

hunter density on the refuge at one per 37± acres. At that density, any vegetation damage or erosion 

would be insignificant. As hunters move about the refuge hunting zones, they will disturb some wildlife 

other than deer. However, that disturbance should be minor, without significant impact on other nontargeted wildlife. It is important to note that the hunting zones are located in the upland areas of the 

refuge, and should not affect migrating waterfowl. In addition, migrating songbirds should have moved 

through the refuge by the late deer season (November – January). 

We expect another impact will be conflict among visitors engaged in hunting and visitors engaged in other 

priority public uses. The other priority public use visitors now have access to the Carmans River only 

by boat, and access on foot to the White Oak Nature Trail and the Indian Landing Nature Trail. We will 

close those trails to non-hunting visitors during the deer hunt in the hunting zones that include those trail 

systems. There is no hunting on the river, but we will post a sign noting the hunting season. A section of 

the refuge north of the Montauk Highway is open for fishing. However, that area is not in a hunting zone, 

so hunters will not conflict with anglers in that area. 

Fall weather can extend boating on the Carmans River into January. We will post signs at the main 

river access points, (i.e., the public car-top launching areas at Montauk Highway and Beaver Dam 

Road), notifying the public that a deer hunt is in progress. We will coordinate with the local canoe/kayak 

outfitting business to ensure that its clients know about the hunt seasons on the refuge. We will further 

instruct hunters that they are not authorized to shoot across waterways, and will reinforce that the 500-

foot safety zone from all the waterways defines hunt zone boundaries.

As with all new activities permitted on the refuge, current operations will increase to include law 

enforcement and maintenance. However, we plan to work with other local, state, and federal law 

enforcement organizations to provide an increased law enforcement presence during the hunting season. 

Maintenance will also increase: preparing parking areas, “no-hunt” zones, and the additional maintenance 

of facilities used by hunters and other priority public use visitors. The refuge will collaborate with other 

organizations to ensure that all visitors can use properly maintained facilities.

Long-term Impacts

We expect no negative long-term impacts on refuge wildlife or habitats. Instead, we expect positive 

long-term impacts. We also expect positive impacts on travelers on roads adjacent to the refuge and its 

surrounding neighbors.

Cumulative Impacts

We expect no negative cumulative impacts.

Public Review and Comment

We are publishing this determination for review concurrently with our comprehensive conservation plan. 

We discussed this use at CCP public meetings and identified it in our CCP Planning Update. We have 

already received several comments. An opportunity to comment further will run concurrently with the 

public review and comment period of the draft CCP and its environmental assessment.
Appendix C

C-20 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Determination

 Use is not compatible

X Use is compatible, with the following stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

	 We will close the refuge to hunting between February 1 and September 30 each year, and establish by annual 

rule specific “open” hunting dates between October 1 and January 31. 

	 Hunters may take only white-tailed deer on the refuge. Hunters must first take the number of antlerless deer 

specified in the refuge hunting regulations before taking an antlered deer.

	 Hunters will obtain valid refuge hunting permits from the refuge, and must carry them on their persons while 

hunting on refuge property. 

	 Hunters must possess proof of completion of the refuge hunting orientation program upon checking in daily at 

the designated refuge location.

	 Hunters must limit driving to designated access roads, and park in areas designated on the map with the 

“Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge Hunting Regulations.”

	 Parking permits distributed by the refuge must be displayed face-up on the vehicle dashboard while hunting.

	 Hunters must check in and be at the assigned parking area noted on the refuge permit, and must check out by 

the time designated on that permit.

	 The use of dogs to hunt or pursue game is prohibited.

	 Hunters are not allowed to carry a loaded weapon or discharge a firearm within the designated 500-foot “No 

Hunt Buffer” surrounding the refuge and noted on the hunt map. That includes vehicles and parking areas.

	 Hunters must direct shots taken adjacent to the 500-foot “No Hunt Buffer” into the refuge interior and away 

from public roads or dwellings.

	 No person shall kill or cripple any deer without making a reasonable effort to retrieve the deer and retain it in 

his/her actual custody.

	 Hunters in Zone 5 are required to hunt from portable tree stands, and must direct fire away from public roads 

or dwellings.

	 During the special firearms season on the refuge, hunters using shotguns can have in their possession shotgun 

shells loaded only with slugs.

	 Deer hunters must wear a minimum of 400 square inches of hunter orange clothing, visible on head, chest, and 

back during refuge special firearms season. Camouflage orange does not qualify.

	 Portable tree stands are the only type permitted on the refuge, and hunters must remove them at the end of 

each hunt day. 

	 Screw-in steps, bolts, or other screw-in materials for tree stands are prohibited.
White-Tailed Deer Hunting

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 C-21

	 Hunters must report all accidents or injuries to refuge personnel as soon as possible, no later than departure 

from the refuge.

	 Failure to comply with federal, state, and refuge regulations will lead to dismissal from the refuge and from 

participating in future hunts. 

	 The refuge hunting regulations listed on the hunting permit will be in effect.

	 The use or possession of alcohol is prohibited.

	 The use of any bait, salt, or enticement is prohibited.

	 A non-hunting adult who has a valid NY state hunting license must accompany junior hunters selected.

	 The use of flagging or reflective trail markers is prohibited.

	 Scouting is allowed only during the designated times and days noted in the refuge hunting regulations.

Justification

White-tailed deer hunting subject to those stipulations will not interfere with the primary purposes for 

which the refuge was established. Because over browsing by deer has already degraded some refuge 

habitats, a deer harvest is essential for improving and maintaining the desired habitat conditions and 

biodiversity on the refuge. The hunting of white-tailed deer will not materially interfere with or detract 

from fulfilling the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the Wertheim refuge.

Project Leader 

(Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Regional Chief 

(Signature) (Date)

Mandatory 15 year Re-evaluation Date 

 (Date)

Literature Cited

Augustine, D.J. and P.A. Jordan. 1998. Predictors of white-tailed deer grazing intensity in fragmented 

deciduous forests. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:1076-1085.

Bernatas, S. B. 2004. White-tailed deer survey for Brookhaven National Laboratory, Wertheim National 

Wildlife Refuge, and Rocky Point Wilderness Area, Long Island, New York. Vision Air Research, 

Inc. Boise, Idaho

Brown, S.E. and G.R. Parker. 1997. Impact of white-tailed deer on forest communities within Brown 

County State Park, Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Sciences. 106:39-51.
Appendix C

C-22 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Casey, D. and D. Hein. 1983. Effects of heavy browsing on a bird community in deciduous forest. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 47:829-836.

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Wildlife Bureau. 1988. Publication DR-11.

Cypher, B.L. and E.A. Cypher. 1988. Ecology and Management of White-tailed Deer in Northeastern 

Coastal Habitats: A Synthesis of the Literature Pertinent to National Wildlife Refuges from 

Maine to Virginia. USFWS Biological Report 88(15).

Green, Tim. Cultural and Natural Resource Manager. Brookhaven National Laboratory 

Krausman, P.R., L.K. Sowls, and B.D. Leopold. 1992. Revisiting overpopulated deer ranges in the United 

States. California Fish & Game Journal. 78:1-10.

McShea, W.J., and J.H. Rappole. 1992. White-tailed deer as keystone species within forested habitats of 

Virginia. Virginia Journal of Science 43:177-186.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1999. Eastern Mud Turtle Fact Sheet. 

Http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/endspec/mutufs.html.

Obrecht, Holliday. Wildlife Biologist. Patuxent Research Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Porter, W.F.1991. White-tailed deer in eastern ecosystems: implications for management and research in 

National Parks. Natural Resources Report NPS/NRSSUNY/NRR-91/05.

Russell, F.L. and N.L. Fowler. 1999. Rarity of oak saplings in savannas and woodlands of the eastern 

Edwards Plateau, TX. Southwestern Naturalist 44:31-41.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Station Management Plan - Long Island, NY National Wildlife 

Refuges. Unpubl. Rept. 64pp.

Van Deelen, T.R., K.S. Pregitzer, and J.B. Haufler. 1996. A comparison of presettlement and present-day 

forests in two northern Michigan deer yards. American Midland Naturalist 135:181-194.

Woolf, A., and J.D. Harder. 1979. Population dynamics of a captive white-tailed deer herd with emphasis 

on reproduction and mortality. Wildlife Monographs 67:53 pp.
Waterfowl Hunting (Resident Canada Geese)

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 C-23

Compatibility Determination

Use

Waterfowl Hunting (Resident Canada Geese) 

Refuge Name

Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, we, our) acquired Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge in 1947 

as a donation from Cecile and Maurice Wertheim, who had maintained the area as a private waterfowl 

hunting reserve. The authorities for acquiring land at the refuge are the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act (16 U.S.C. §715d) and the Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. §724f(a)(4)). 

Refuge Purposes

	 “...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” (16 U.S.C. 

§715d).

	 “...incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development” (16 U.S.C. §460k-1).

	 “the protection of natural resources” (16 U.S.C. §460k-1).

	 “the conservation of endangered species or threatened species...” (16 U.S.C. §460k-1).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission

“The mission of the System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (Pub. L. 

105–57; 111 Stat. 1252).

Description of Use

(a) What is this use? Is it a priority public use? The use is waterfowl hunting for resident Canada 

geese. Hunting is a priority public use of the National Wildlife Refuge System under the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. §§668dd–668ee) as amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.

(b) Where would the use be conducted? We will conduct the proposed hunt on the Wertheim refuge 

along its shoreline of Bellport Bay west of the mouth of the Carmans River and in the Big Fish Creek 

Impoundment, where we would establish two hunting blinds. We will require hunters who want to hunt 

from the refuge shoreline of Bellport Bay to provide their own temporary blinds and remove them each 

day. 

(c) When would the use be conducted? Our hunting program will fall within the seasonal framework 

established by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) for the 

resident population of Canada geese. Within that seasonal framework, we will specify the days and times 

when we will permit hunting according to refuge rules. 

(d) How would the use be conducted? We must list specific closures and hunting regulations in the 

annual refuge hunting regulations package, on information kiosks, and in advance media notices. 

We will reserve at least one blind in the Big Fish Creek Impoundment for disabled or youth hunters 

(accompanied by a parent or guardian, pursuant to NYS law), and will establish a lottery system to 
Appendix C

C-24 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

provide equal access to the impoundment blinds. Hunters would be able to drive to the Big Fish Creek 

Impoundment to hand-launch a non-motorized boat.

We will allow hunters on the refuge shoreline of Bellport Bay to use motorized watercraft. However, no 

public launching areas would be provided. Public launching facilities are available nearby at Squassux 

Landing, the Smith Point County Marina, and other local facilities. We will permit the use of dogs in 

hunting waterfowl, but the dogs must remain under the control of their owners at all times.

We will honor all state and local laws applicable to hunting. We will enforce the allowable take of Canada 

geese within NYS bag limits and seasons. All persons interested in hunting on the refuge must possess 

a valid NYS hunting license and Harvest Information Program (HIP) number. Hunters using the Big 

Fish Creek Impoundment must provide proof of having taken a NYS-approved Waterfowl Identification 

Course or equivalent course from another state. 

(e) Why is this use being proposed? We are proposing waterfowl hunting for resident Canada geese to 

provide the public with recreation opportunities identified as priority, wildlife-dependent public uses of the 

System. 

Hunting has been a traditional form of recreation along the Carmans River corridor for generations. 

The Wertheim family hunted waterfowl and deer along the lower reaches of the Carmans River. Today, 

waterfowl hunting continues north of the refuge in Southaven County Park and south of the refuge 

in Great South Bay. Under Service policy, hunting is an acceptable, traditional form of recreation, 

particularly in areas that historically supported hunting. We may modify hunting opportunities on the 

refuge for various reasons: considering wildlife populations, maintaining habitat, maintaining a safe and 

high-quality hunting experience or, in rare instances, protecting a research population.

Resident Canada geese have adapted well to suburban environments. Their populations throughout New 

York State have increased (USFWS 2002), and have become large enough to negatively affect plantings at 

wetland restoration sites on and next to the refuge. They are also important game species that provides 

recreational hunting opportunities for New York hunters. 

Availability of Resources 

Initial costs include the construction of facilities and purchase of supplies to support the hunt. We 

estimate annual costs at $4,000. Refuge staff will prepare the annual refuge hunting regulations leaflet, 

change the hunt plan and regulations as needed, construct or repair hunting blinds, prepare annual 

output reports, and respond to public inquiries about the hunt program. 

In addition to staff expenses, the refuge will incur the costs of posting signs, maintaining vehicles, 

printing leaflets, and providing miscellaneous supplies. We will request the assistance, as needed, of 

Service or other authorized law enforcement personnel from federal, state, county or local agencies 

during the hunt.

Initial Costs

Construct blinds (materials)............................................................... $1,500

Create parking space (at impoundment)................................................ 500

Produce hunt permits and informational products............................... 500

Design hunter orientation course....................................................... $1,000

Total....................................................................................................... $3,500
Waterfowl Hunting (Resident Canada Geese)

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 C-25

Annually Recurring Costs

Administer hunt (reservations; check-in/out)...................................... $500

Construct or remove blinds.................................................................... $500

Pay law enforcement overtime details............................................... $2,000

Print permits............................................................................................ $500

Miscellaneous (signs, equipment, vehicle, etc.)................................... $500

Total....................................................................................................... $4,000

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

The refuge also provides important wintering habitat for the bald eagle, a federal-listed threatened 

species, and state-listed species including the northern harrier, short-eared owl, and pied-billed grebe. In 

most years, two or three bald eagles winter on the refuge. They have been observed most often along the 

main stem of the Carmans River, its major tributaries, and the Big Fish Creek Impoundment from late 

November to April. Although most research has focused on the disturbance of breeding bald eagles, much 

of that research would also apply to wintering eagles.

The principal impacts likely would be the disruption of feeding patterns and the displacement from roosts 

or feeding sites. Both the presence of humans and boating activity have been documented as disturbing 

eagles (USFWS 1987, Buehler et al. 1991; Debreceni and Badzinski 2003), which at some level may be 

considered “take” under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. §1531, et seq.; 87 Stat. 884, as amended). 

The act defines “take” as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or to 

attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Pursuant to the requirements of that act, we will complete an 

intra-Service consultation with our New York Field Office. Because bald eagles usually are not present on 

the refuge in September, we believe that our hunting program is unlikely to affect them adversely.

Pied-billed grebes generally are observed between late September and April on the Big Fish Creek 

Impoundment (unpublished refuge data). Northern harriers and short-eared owls typically are present 

from November to April. Given the small size of pied-billed grebes, hunters are not likely to mistake them 

for Canada geese. Northern harriers and short-eared owls generally are not present on the refuge during 

the resident Canada goose season. We believe that the waterfowl hunt will not negatively affect those 

species.

Short-term Impacts 

Hunting will have a number of short-term impacts on refuge resources. Two impacts we expect are 

minor damage to vegetation and increased amounts of litter. Migrating songbirds and shorebirds may 

be present in September, and hunting may disturb some of them. Because Bellport Bay is a shared 

waterway, conflicts may arise among hunters and recreational boaters or anglers. However, conflicts 

among those users should be minimal: along its shoreline, the bay is shallow, with little boat traffic. The 

Big Fish Creek Impoundment is not open to the public, and we expect no conflicts among users there. The 

sound of gunfire may disturb some of our residential neighbors, but we will mitigate that by outreach and 

by restricting the days and times when we permit hunting. 

We will post signs at the main river access points, (i.e., public car-top launching areas at Montauk 

Highway and Beaver Dam Road), to notify the public that a waterfowl hunt is in progress. We will 

coordinate with the local canoe and kayak outfitter to ensure that its clients receive notice of the hunt 

seasons on the refuge. 

Grazing by large numbers of resident Canada geese has affected wetland plantings and limited the 

establishment of native wetland annual plant species in the refuge freshwater impoundment and the 

Beaver Dam Creek restoration site nearby. Removing some of the geese will help us manage and restore 

habitat for fall and spring migrants, wintering waterfowl, and such water birds as coots and grebes. 
Appendix C

C-26 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

As with all new activities permitted on the refuge, our current refuge operations will expand to include 

law enforcement and maintenance. However, we plan to work with other local, state, and federal law 

enforcement organizations to provide an increased presence during the hunting season. Maintenance will 

also increase, primarily in preparing parking areas and maintaining the facilities used by hunters and 

other priority public use visitors. 

Long-term Impacts

We expect no negative, long-term impacts on wildlife or habitats. Instead, removing some resident 

Canada geese may help alleviate grazing pressure on wetland restoration sites and benefit local schools, 

golf courses, or other establishments these large numbers of geese affect. 

Cumulative Impacts

We anticipate no negative, cumulative impacts.

Determination

 Use is not compatible

X Use is compatible, with the following stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

	 We will close the refuge to waterfowl hunting except on specific hunting dates we will establish by annual rule 

between September 1 and September 30. 

	 Hunters may take only Canada geese on the refuge. Refuge bag and possession limits will conform to New York 

State regulations.

	 Hunters must have on their persons a valid Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge Hunting Permit while hunting 

the Big Fish Creek Impoundment. Hunters will obtain permits from the refuge. 

	 Hunters must possess a New York State hunting license and HIP number. Hunters using the Big Fish Creek 

Impoundment must also possess proof of having completed an approved Waterfowl Identification course. 

	 Hunters must limit driving to designated access roads and park in designated areas noted on the map provided 

with the Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge Hunting Regulations.

	 Hunters using the shoreline of Bellport Bay must remove their blinds daily. Permanent blinds are not allowed.

	 Hunters using the shoreline of Bellport Bay are restricted to the refuge shoreline of the bay west of the mouth 

of the Carmans River, no more than 15 feet on the landward side of the mean high tide line. 

	 Hunters using the Big Fish Creek Impoundment must check out at the refuge and report the numbers of birds 

taken.

	 We will permit the use of dogs in hunting waterfowl; but the dogs must be under the control of their owners at 

all times.

	 No person shall kill or cripple any waterfowl without making a reasonable effort to retrieve it and retain it in his 

or her actual custody.

	 Hunters using the Big Fish Creek Impoundment must use our established blinds. Modifying them or 

constructing additional blinds is prohibited. 
Waterfowl Hunting (Resident Canada Geese)

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 C-27

	 Hunters must report all accidents and injuries to refuge personnel as soon as possible, but in all cases before 

leaving the refuge.

	 Failure to comply with federal, state, or refuge regulations will lead to dismissal from the refuge and from 

participation in future hunts. 

	 The refuge hunting regulations listed on the refuge hunting permit will be in effect.

	 The use or possession of alcohol is prohibited.

	 The use of any bait is prohibited.

	 The use of flagging or reflective trail markers is prohibited.

	 An adult with a valid New York State hunting license must accompany junior hunters.

Justification

Hunting during the resident Canada goose season, under the stipulations above, will not interfere with 

the primary purposes for which the refuge was established. The hunting of resident Canada geese will not 

materially interfere with or detract from fulfilling the mission of the System or the purposes of the refuge.

Project Leader 

(Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Regional Chief 

(Signature) (Date)

Mandatory 15 year Re-evaluation Date 

 (Date)

Literature Cited

Buehler, D.A., T.J. Mersmann, J.D. Fraser, and J.K.D. Seegar. 1991. Effects of human activity on bald 

eagle distribution on the northern Chesapeake Bay. J. Wildl. Manage. 55: 282-290.

Debreceni, S.M. and D.S. Badzinski. 2003. Southern Ontario Bald Eagle Monitoring Project – 2003 Final 

Report. Bird Studies Canada, Port Rowan, Ontario. 

USFWS. 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region. Department 

of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service. Arlington Virginia. 

USFWS. 2002. Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Resident Canada Goose Management. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 

Arlington, Virginia. 

Sport Fishing

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 C-29

Compatibility Determination

Use

Sport Fishing

Refuge Name

Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Dates Established

Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge 1947

Elizabeth A. Morton National Wildlife Refuge 1954

Target Rock National Wildlife Refuge 1967

Amagansett National Wildlife Refuge 1968

Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge 1968

Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge 1968

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, we, our) acquired the Wertheim, Morton, Target Rock, 

Oyster Bay and Seatuck refuges under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 

§715d). Cecile and Maurice Wertheim, who had maintained 2,550 acres as a private waterfowl hunting 

reserve, donated that land for the Wertheim refuge. We established the refuge under the authority of 

the MBCA and the Refuge Recreation Act of 166, as amended (16 U.S.C. §724f(a)(4)). We also acquired 

the Morton refuge (187 acres) and the Target Rock refuge (80 acres) by donation from the Morton and 

Eberstadt families, respectively. The Town of Oyster Bay donated 2,400 acres for the Oyster Bay refuge, 

which has deed restrictions for mineral rights and shell fishing leases. We established the Amagansett 

refuge in 1968 for the management of migratory birds under 16 U.S.C. §667b, which authorizes the 

transfer of real property for wildlife, or other purposes.

Refuge Purposes

	 “...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” (16 U.S.C. 

§715d).

	 “...incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development” (16 U.S.C. §460k-1).

	 “the protection of natural resources” (16 U.S.C. §460k-1).

	 “the conservation of endangered species or threatened species...” (16 U.S.C. §460k-1).

	 “...their particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program” (16 U.S.C §667b).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission

“The mission of the System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (Pub. L. 

105–57; 111 Stat. 1252).

Description of Use

(a) What is this use? Is it a priority public use? The use is recreational sport fishing, to include fishing 

from shore or while wading, and fishing from a boat. Fishing is a priority public use of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.

S.C. §668dd–668ee), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.
Appendix C

C-30 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

(b) Where would the use be conducted? The Amagansett refuge, in the Town of Easthampton, NY, 

consists of 36 acres of barrier beach habitat, including a double dune system, swales, and sandy beach 

(figure C-1). The refuge boundary extends to the mean high waterline of the Atlantic Ocean. In the 

summer of 2005, a pair of piping plovers (Charadrius melodus) nested on the beachfront for the first time 

in several years, and successfully fledged two young. We erected signs and symbolic fencing around the 

nesting area, to comply with our Piping Plover Recovery Plan (USFWS 1996). The State of New York 

lists piping plovers as endangered. The Federal Government lists the Atlantic Coast population of piping 

plovers as threatened. We would restrict shoreline fishing at the refuge to the beachfront, away from 

plover nesting areas.

The Elizabeth A. Morton refuge, situated in the Town of Southampton, NY, encompasses a variety of 

habitats on its 187 acres. Its beaches extend to the mean high waterline of the Noyack and Little Peconic 

bays. We would permit shoreline fishing along the 1.5 mile peninsula between the bays. Sandy and rocky 

beaches fringe that peninsula, and provide nesting habitat for ospreys, piping plovers, and least terns 

between April 1 and August 31 each year. In 2005, six pairs of piping plover nested at the refuge, but due 

to predation and inclement weather, they fledged only four young. In the last decade, piping plovers have 

nested at the Morton refuge each year. The least tern colony at the refuge in 2005 succeeded in producing 

28 fledglings, down from the 60 young that fledged in 2003. Due to the federal and state listing status of 

those migratory shorebirds, we would restrict shoreline fishing from nesting areas. 

The Oyster Bay refuge, located in the Town of Oyster Bay, NY, includes 3,209 acres of tidal wetlands and 

marine sub-tidal habitats. We would permit recreational fishing from boats on all navigable refuge waters, 

which include areas in Cold Spring Harbor, Bayville, Oyster Bay Harbor, and Mill Neck Creek. Those 

are principally marine waters, although brackish water runs in Mill Neck Creek. Game species in the bay 

include American eel, bluefish, striped bass, scup, tautog, and flounder. We would also permit fishing along 

the northern shore of Mill Pond.

The Seatuck refuge, situated in the Town of Islip, NY, comprises 198 acres of tidal wetland, pine barren, 

warm season grass and open water habitats. We would permit recreational fishing from boats on the 

navigable waters of the refuge, including a 300-foot by 2200-foot section of the Great South Bay adjacent 

to the refuge beach. Game species in the bay include American eel, bluefish, striped bass, scup, tautog, 

and flounder. The flounder species account for the bulk of the recreational harvest in Great South Bay.

The Target Rock refuge, located in the town of Huntington, NY, includes 80 acres of mature oak-hickory 

forest, tidal wetland, and rocky beach habitats. We would allow shoreline fishing on the rocky beach of the 

refuge, to give the public access to fishing locations from the rocky beach into Huntington Bay. Shoreline 

fishing excludes the brackish tidal pond on the nature trail. The beach at Target Rock is also important 

foraging habitat for piping plovers. As many as two pairs of piping plovers have nested on the sandy 

beach next to refuge property, most recently in 2000. Historically, portions of that beach were closed to 

reduce the disturbance of belted kingfishers and bank swallows nesting on the adjacent cliffs. We would 

prohibit fishing from the shoreline near nesting areas.

The Wertheim refuge, located in the Town of Brookhaven, NY, serves as the headquarters of the 

Complex. The largest refuge in the Complex, Wertheim encompasses 2,550 acres of forests, grasslands, 

and wetlands. We would permit shoreline fishing at the fishing access site on the north side of Montauk 

Highway across from Smith Road. 

(c) When would the use be conducted? We would permit sport fishing from sunrise to sunset when the 

refuges are open to the public. Seasonal restrictions to protect listed species or important nesting habitat 

for migratory birds would be in place from April 1 to September 1 at the Morton, Target Rock, and 
Sport Fishing

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 C-31

Amagansett refuges. Sport fishing at the Oyster Bay and Seatuck refuges would conform to regulations 

set yearly by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

(d) How would the use be conducted? Fishing would be conducted in accordance with refuge regulations 

that apply to all visitors: e.g., no littering, no pets, no feeding or disturbing wildlife or venturing into 

closed areas. We would also require anglers to adhere to the fishing regulations set by the New York State 

Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) each year. 

Visitors typically enter the refuges by their entrance roads or by boat. We charge a minimal entrance fee 

for all persons entering the Morton and Target Rock refuges. 

(e) Why is this use being proposed? Sport fishing, whether it is angling from shore, wading in the water, 

or fishing from a boat, is a priority wildlife-dependent public use of the System. 

Availability of Resources 

Our maintenance staff installs and maintains fences and signs to designate public access areas at the 

Wertheim refuge. We estimate that maintaining the present fishing access costs $5,000 a year. That figure 

assumes no major vandalism of parking areas, fencing, or overlooks. It does not include the amount the 

state contributes to construct and maintain the boardwalks at that refuge. Law enforcement staff will 

ensure compliance with refuge regulations.

At the Oyster Bay and Seatuck refuges, refuge maintenance staff maintains boundary signs to designate 

public access areas. Those refuges are closed to foot travel, thus keeping resources for sport fishing at 

these refuges to a minimum. Law enforcement staff will ensure compliance with refuge regulations.

The maintenance of refuge trails and facilities includes costs that do not relate directly to shoreline 

fishing. However, the trails are the only way to access the shoreline fishing locations. Pedestrian travel 

may add incremental needs for additional trail maintenance. Those include salaries, maintaining trails 

and facilities, and purchasing materials and other supplies. We keep a bathroom open year-round at 

each location for public users of the trail system. The kiosks that provide important information to help 

guide trail users to locations of interest also require regular maintenance and the replenishment of their 

brochures.

We estimate approximately one day per week at each location for conducting routine maintenance, 

clearing trails, and providing general upkeep. We estimate the annual cost of maintaining the trails and 

facilities at $9,000 per refuge, or a total of $27,000, and the cost for law enforcement, resource protection 

and monitoring at $20,700. The collection of approximately $8,000 in entrance fees at the Morton and 

Target Rock refuges partly offsets those costs. All visitors at those refuges must have a valid Migratory 

Bird Stamp or Annual Pass, or pay a $4 use fee. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

Sport fishing will affect refuge resources. Shoreline and wading anglers, like other visitors, damage 

vegetation and increase erosion. They disturb wildlife in the vicinity, and deposit litter, which is unsightly 

and may pose a hazard to wildlife (e.g., fishing line, hooks). They clean fish on refuge lands, which attracts 

vermin and may detract from the experience of other visitors. The fishing access area at Wertheim is one 

example: areas of the bank denuded of herbaceous vegetation are eroding, and visitors frequently dispose 

of litter and fishing line on the bank. 

The principal potential impact of recreational sport fishing at the Seatuck and Oyster Bay refuges is the 

over harvesting of species. The Complex lacks recent fish population data for those areas; therefore, 

future studies will concentrate on evaluating the likelihood of over harvesting from recreational angling. 

We can only estimate the likelihood of over harvesting from angling, because all anglers must comply with 
Appendix C

C-32 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

New York State fishing regulations. Those are conservative, and limit the take of species with declining 

populations. Other potential impacts of fishing from boats are the spills of gasoline and motor oil, the 

release of toxic fumes into the water, and litter that may injure wildlife species. 

Sport fish also provide food for many wildlife species, including terns, gulls, wading birds, ospreys, and 

waterfowl. Whether angling will reduce the prey base for those species is unclear. The removal of adult 

fish that prey on forage fish similar to those eaten by bird species may reduce competition for prey, but 

the removal of adult fish of breeding age may reduce the amount of forage fish (i.e., fewer sport fish fry 

and juveniles available for fish-eating birds).

Cumulative Impacts

We expect no negative cumulative impacts.

Public Review and Comment

We are publishing this compatibility determination for review concurrently with our comprehensive 

conservation plan (CCP). We have discussed this use at our CCP public meetings, and have identified it in 

our CCP Planning Update. We have already received several comments. The public review and comment 

period of the draft CCP and its environmental assessment will offer another opportunity for comments.

Determination

 Use is not compatible

X Use is compatible, with the following stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

	 Anglers must comply with all New York State angling regulations. 

	 Anglers must comply with all refuge regulations concerning restrictions on the time of day or time of year for 

fishing.

	 At the Wertheim refuge, fishing from the shoreline or while wading is permitted only at the fishing access area 

north of Montauk Highway. Angling at other locations on the refuge is allowed only from a boat.

	 At the Morton refuge, anglers are restricted to the shoreline west and south of the observation platform from 

April 1 to September 1, to protect federal- and state-listed species and nesting ospreys.

	 At the Target Rock refuge, anglers are restricted to the shoreline south and east of the observation platform 

from April 1 to September 1, to protect federal-listed species and nesting bank swallows. The brackish pond is 

closed to angling year-round.

	 The Amagansett refuge is closed to angling between April 1 and September 1 to protect federal-listed species. 

	 Anglers must not clean their catch or dispose of offal on refuge lands or in refuge waters, and must carry all 

litter off the refuge.

	 Anglers must report all accidents or injuries to refuge personnel as soon as possible, but in all cases before 

leaving the refuge. 

Justification

Fishing is a priority, wildlife-dependent use of the System, through which the public can develop an 

appreciation for fish and wildlife (Executive Order No. 12996, March 25, 1996; and the National Wildlife 
Sport Fishing

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 C-33

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. 

Service policy is to provide expanded opportunities for priority uses when they are compatible and 

consistent with sound fish and wildlife management, and ensure that they receive enhanced consideration 

during planning and management. Sport fishing from the shoreline, while wading, or while angling from a 

boat will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the System or the purposes for which 

the refuges were established. 

Project Leader 

(Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Regional Chief 

(Signature) (Date)

Mandatory 15 year Re-evaluation Date 

 (Date)

Non-Motorized Boating (Oyster Bay)

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 C-35

Compatibility Determination

Use

Non-Motorized Boating

Refuge Name

Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, we, our) acquired the Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge 

in 1968 as a donation from the Town of Oyster Bay. The authorities for acquiring refuge lands are the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (MBCA) (16 U.S.C. 715d) and the Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 

724f(a)(4)). 

Refuge Purpose

 “...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” 

(16 U.S.C. §715d).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission

“The mission of the System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (Pub. L. 

105–57; 111 Stat. 1252).

Description of Use

(a) What is this use? Is it a priority public use? The use is non-motorized boating in Oyster Bay with 

sailboats, canoes, kayaks, and rowboats. Although boating is not a priority public use of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System under the Improvement Act, many boaters engage in wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental interpretation, which are priority public uses. In 2004, an estimated 

26,000 boaters used refuge waters. Part of that use involved non-motorized watercraft, in particular, 

sailboats.

(b) Where would the use be conducted? We would conduct the use at the Oyster Bay refuge, a unit of 

the nine-unit Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Specifically, boating would occur on Oyster 

Bay and parts of Cold Spring Harbor. The waters are tidal. The refuge manages the water column from 

the bottom to mean high tide within its borders (see map C-1). Refuge visitors can access most of its 

waters by using non-motorized boats. Approximately 2,800 acres of open water on Oyster Bay and Mill 

Neck Creek are available to boaters.

(c) When would the use be conducted? We would allow non-motorized boating all year. Approximately 

80 percent of that use occurs between April and September, mostly on weekends and holidays. Parts of 

Oyster Bay freeze for short periods, but open water generally is present in each month of the year. 

(d) How would the use be conducted? Boaters would launch at various launch sites, marinas or legal 

private docks located in and around Oyster Bay and Cold Spring Harbor, and would be required to 

operate their craft and possess all safety equipment in accordance with New York State and U.S. Coast 

Guard regulations. 

(e) Why is this use being proposed? The Oyster Bay refuge is mainly open water that provides fish and 

wildlife habitat and public uses such as fishing, crabbing, oystering, wildlife observation, photography, 

interpretation and recreational boating. Boating facilitates four priority public uses the refuge offers. 
Appendix C

C-36 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Availability of Resources 

We estimate the annual cost of this program at $5,000. Refuge staff will respond to public inquiries 

about the boat access program, perform law enforcement patrols, and post signs to delineate the refuge 

boundaries. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

Non-motorized boating may affect refuge resources in a number of ways. Canoes and rowboats have been 

shown to disturb wildlife (Bouffard 1982, Kaiser and Fritzell 1984, Knight 1984, Kahl 1991). Boaters may 

affect waterfowl broods, wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, and long-legged waders, but the slow 

speed of non-motorized watercraft and the concentration of their use during the warmer months would 

tend to mitigate those impacts, especially for wintering waterfowl and raptors. 

Cumulative Impacts

We expect no negative cumulative impacts.

Public Review and Comment

We are publishing this compatibility determination for review concurrently with our comprehensive 

conservation plan. We discussed this use at CCP public meetings and identified it in our CCP Planning 

Update. We have received several comments to date. An opportunity for further public comment will run 

concurrently with the public review and comment period of the draft CCP and environmental assessment.

Determination

 Use is not compatible

X Use is compatible, with the following stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

	 Boaters must comply with all New York State and U.S. Coast Guard requirements. 

	 Boaters must restrict their activity to daylight hours only. 

	 Boaters must report all accidents and injuries to refuge personnel as soon as possible, but no later than 

departure from the refuge.

	 Boaters are prohibited from landing or launching their boats on refuge lands. 

Justification

The use of non-motorized watercraft on Oyster Bay refuge waters is unlikely to interfere with the 

primary purposes for which the refuge was established. Many refuge visitors use non-motorized 

watercraft as part of their participation in priority public uses such as fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and interpretation. Allowing non-motorized boating to occur within the Oyster Bay refuge 

will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes for 

which the refuge was established.
Non-Motorized Boating (Oyster Bay)

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 C-37

Project Leader 

(Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Regional Chief 

(Signature) (Date)

Mandatory 10 year Re-evaluation Date 

 (Date)

Literature Cited

Bouffard S.H. 1982. Wildlife values versus human recreation: Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Trans. 

North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 47:553-558.

Kahl, R. 1991. Boating disturbance of canvasbacks during migration at Lake Poygan, Wisconsin. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 19:243-248. 

Kaiser, M.S., and E.K. Kaiser 1984. Effects of river recreationists on green-backed heron behavior. J. 

Wildlife Management 48:561-567. 

Knight, R.L. 1984. Responses of wintering bald eagles to boating activity. J. Wildlife Management. 48:999-

1004.
Appendix C

C-38 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex Non-Motorized Boating Map C-1

Produced by Long Island NWR Complex, Shirley, New YorkBathymetric DEM: USGS National Mapping ProgramRefuge boundary: USFWS, Region 5, Div. of Realty 2006 Datum and projection: NAD 1983, UTM Zone 18, MetersMap Date: 7/2006

μ

1:54,043

0 1 2

Miles

0 1 2 3

Kilometers

Refuge Boundary(3,204 Acres)

Oyster Bay National Wildlife RefugeU.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceNassau County, New York
Non-Motorized Boating (Wertheim)

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 C-39

Compatibility Determination

Use

Non-motorized Boating

Refuge Name

Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, we, our) acquired the Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge 

as a donation from Cecile and Maurice Wertheim, who had maintained the area as a private waterfowl 

hunting reserve. We acquire land for the refuge under the authorities of the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act (16 U.S.C. §715d) and the Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. §724f(a)(4)). 

Refuge Purposes

 “...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” 

(16 U.S.C. §715d).

 “...incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development” (16 U.S.C. §460k-1).

 “the protection of natural resources” (16 U.S.C. §460k-1).

 “the conservation of endangered species or threatened species...” (16 U.S.C. §460k-1).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission

“The mission of the System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (Pub. L. 

105–57; 111 Stat. 1252).

Description of Use

(a) What is this use? Is it a priority public use? The use is non-motorized boating on the Carmans 

River and its major tributaries. Non-motorized boating is not a priority public use of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd–

668ee) as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. However, many 

boaters engage in viewing, photographing, or interpreting wildlife, which are priority public uses. In 1993, 

an estimated 15,000 boaters used the refuge waters.

(b) Where would the use be conducted? We would conduct non-motorized boating at the Wertheim 

refuge, headquarters for the nine-unit Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Specifically, 

boating would occur on the Carmans River and its major tributaries, including the lower reaches of 

Yaphank Creek, Little Neck Run, and Big Fish Creek. The refuge manages both banks and bottoms 

within its borders (see map C-2). The lower reaches of the tributaries are tidal, and boats can access some 

portions of the creeks only at high tide. Approximately 435 acres of open water on the Carmans River, 

Little Neck Run, and Yaphank Creek are available for non-motorized boating.

(c) When would the use be conducted? We would allow non-motorized boating all year as conditions 

permit. The Carmans River occasionally freezes for short periods, but open water generally is present in 

each month of the year. Approximately 80 percent of the use occurs between April and September, mostly 

on weekends and holidays. 
Appendix C

C-40 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

(d) How would the use be conducted? Boaters would launch at the Fishing Access Area north of 

Montauk Highway. They would be required to operate their craft and possess all safety equipment in 

accordance with New York State and U.S. Coast Guard regulations. 

(e) Why is this use being proposed? The Carmans River is a New York State-designated Scenic River 

that provides fish and wildlife habitat and public uses such as fishing, crabbing, wildlife observation and 

photography, interpretation and recreational boating. In addition, the refuge Indian Landing Nature Trail 

is accessible only by boat. Boating facilitates four of the six priority public uses the refuge offers. 

Availability of Resources 

We estimate the annual cost of this program at about $5,000. Refuge staff will respond to public inquiries 

about the program, perform law enforcement patrols, and assist partners with the maintenance of the 

fishing access site. Refuge staff will receive assistance from the New York Department of Environmental 

Conservation under a cooperative agreement. 

The fishing area launch is an unimproved, hand-launch facility. The Service does not manage the improved 

launches on the Carmans River. We charge no fees for using the fishing access area. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

Non-motorized boating can affect refuge resources in a number of ways. Studies show that canoes and 

rowboats disturb wildlife (Bouffard 1982; Kaiser and Fritzell 1984; Knight 1984; Kahl 1991). They may 

affect waterfowl broods, wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, and long-legged waders, but their low 

speed and their use primarily during the warmer months would mitigate those impacts, especially on 

wintering waterfowl and raptors. Boaters also may try to access closed portions of the refuge, causing 

additional disturbance of wildlife. 

Cumulative Impacts

We expect no negative cumulative impacts.

Public Review and Comment

We are publishing this compatibility determination for review concurrently with our comprehensive 

conservation plan (CCP). We have discussed this use at our CCP public meetings, and have identified it in 

our CCP Planning Update. We have already received several comments. The public review and comment 

period of the draft CCP and associated environmental assessment will offer another opportunity for 

comment.

Determination

 Use is not compatible

X Use is compatible, with the following stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

 Boaters must comply with all New York State and U.S. Coast Guard requirements. 

 Boaters must restrict their activity to daylight hours only. 

 Boaters must report all accidents and injuries to refuge personnel as soon as possible, but before leaving the 

refuge.
Non-Motorized Boating (Wertheim)

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 C-41

 Boaters are prohibited from landing or launching on refuge lands other than at the Fishing Access Area and 

Indian Landing. 

Justification

The use of non-motorized watercraft on the Carmans River and its major tributaries is unlikely to 

interfere with the primary purposes for which the refuge was established. Many refuge visitors use 

non-motorized watercraft to participate in such priority public uses as fishing, wildlife observation, 

photography and interpretation. Allowing non-motorized boating in Wertheim refuge will not materially 

interfere with or detract from the mission of the System or the purposes for which the refuge was 

established.

Project Leader 

(Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Regional Chief 

(Signature) (Date)

Mandatory 10 year Re-evaluation Date 

 (Date)

Literature Cited

Bouffard S.H. 1982. Wildlife values versus human recreation: Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Trans. 

North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 47:553-558.

Kahl, R. 1991. Boating disturbance of canvasbacks during migration at Lake Poygan, Wisconsin. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 19:243-248. 

Kaiser, M.S., and E.K. Kaiser 1984. Effects of river recreationists on green-backed heron behavior. J. 

Wildlife Management 48:561-567. 

Knight, R.L. 1984. Responses of wintering bald eagles to boating activity. J. Wildlife Management. 48:999-

1004.
Appendix C

C-42 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Suffolk County, New York

Boat Launches

Map C1:28,047

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Kilometers Produced by Long Island NWR Complex, Shirley, New York

Refuge boundary: USFWS, Region 5, Div. of Realty 2004

Datum and projection: NAD 1983, UTM Zone 18, Meters

Map Date: 3/2006

Trail Access via

Canoe/Kayak

Water

Railroad

Access Road

Nature Trails

See Map 3-15

Refuge Boundary

(2,572 Acres)

Shore Fishing Access,

Canoe/Kayak Launch

Smith

Road

Old Stump Road

Beaver Dam Road

Montauk Hwy

Squassux Landing

Indian Landing

Fishing Access Area

Map C-2
Fish Stocking

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 C-43

Compatibility Determination

Use

Fish Stocking

Refuge Name

Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, we, our) acquired Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge in 1947 

as a donation from Cecile and Maurice Wertheim, who had maintained the land as a private waterfowl 

hunting reserve. We established the refuge and acquired its land under the authorities of the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. §715d) and the Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. §724f(a)(4)). 

Refuge Purposes

 “...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” 

(16 U.S.C. §715d).

 “...incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development” (16 U.S.C. §460k-1).

 “the protection of natural resources” (16 U.S.C. §460k-1).

 “the conservation of endangered species or threatened species...” (16 U.S.C. §460k-1).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission

“The mission of the System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (Pub. L. 

105–57; 111 Stat. 1252).

Description of Use

(a) What is this use? Is it a priority public use? No. The stocking of freshwater fish is not a priority 

public use of the National Wildlife Refuge System under the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd–668ee) as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997.

(b) Where would the use be conducted? We will stock freshwater fish, primarily trout species, at the 

Wertheim refuge, the headquarters of the nine-unit Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex. That 

2,550-acre refuge includes the Carmans River and Yaphank Creek, which currently support non-native 

populations of brown trout and rainbow trout, and small native populations of brook trout; and Big Fish 

Creek and Little Neck Run, which historically supported brook trout populations and may incidentally 

support various trout species. 

(c) When would the use be conducted? People now fish for trout in the upper reaches of the Carmans 

River and Yaphank Creek. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) 

stocks brown trout and rainbow trout in March, April, and May. NYSDEC staff and volunteers stock the 

upper portion of the Carmans River (between the Long Island Railroad Bridge and Montauk Highway) 

with 1,000 to 3,000 trout in the 7- to 12-inch size range. About half are brown trout and half are rainbow 

trout hatched and grown in a NYSDEC hatchery. The trout stocking is part of an agreement between the 

Service and the NYSDEC on the operation and maintenance of the fishing access area on the north side 

of Montauk Highway (January 14, 1985). 
Appendix C

C-44 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

(d) How would the use be conducted? The NYSDEC would continue stocking as agreed. In undertaking 

any habitat restoration, we would consider opportunities for restoring native brook trout populations to 

refuge waters. 

(e) Why is this use being proposed? Because the present water quality limits the potential for trout 

reproduction, stocking provides the public with recreation opportunities identified as priority wildlifedependent public uses of the System (Pub. L. 105–57; 111 Stat. 1252). 

Availability of Resources 

 No additional resources are necessary to allow the use. The NYSDEC assumes all costs associated 

with rearing and stocking fish and related activities. The only costs to the refuge would be minimal: 

administrative costs associated with site visits to the release locations. Our present budget can easily 

accommodate those minimal costs.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

Short-term Impacts

Potential direct impacts on the natural resources of the refuge include impacts on the native fish 

community and the transmission of disease to those fish. Indirect impacts include anglers contributing to 

increased erosion, littering, and trampling vegetation along the banks and the access trail. 

Disease transmission is not a major concern, because the NYSDEC obtains all the trout it stocks from 

a state hatchery; the state guarantees their health. Our first concern is whether the stocked, non-native 

trout species will displace or negatively affect the existing fish community. Both species compete with 

native species for space and prey (Fausch and White 1981, Fausch 1989).

The fish community at the northern part of the refuge, where the NYSDEC stocks the trout, consists of 

warm and cool freshwater species and various estuarine species. The dominant warm and cool freshwater 

species include golden shiner, largemouth bass, yellow perch, pumpkinseed, bluegill, common carp, black 

crappie and chain pickerel. The estuarine species include American eel, various killifish, inland silverside, 

white perch, striped bass, alewife, blueback herring and bluefish. Native brook trout historically were 

present there in large numbers, but now are present only in low numbers in the main stem of the 

Carmans.

One mile south, in the middle section of the Carmans River where its salinity levels start to increase, the 

fish community is dominated to a much greater extent by such estuarine and marine species as inland 

silversides, menhaden, alewife, American eel, striped bass, various killifish species, white perch, blueback 

herring, bluefish and hogchokers. Rainbow and brown trout are present here only in low numbers. They 

have been sampled with greater frequency in the upper portion of the Carmans River, but only in spring, 

and usually not as dominants. No rainbow or brown trout reproduction has been documented in the 

Carmans River on the refuge.

The surface water temperatures of the upper Carmans River in summer frequently exceed 75 degrees. 

Both trout species tend to prefer cooler water temperatures. Cold-water species occasionally must seek 

out groundwater seeps or other refuge from high temperatures. Anglers and fish-eating birds largely 

harvest the stocked trout; their survivorship through the summer months is low. Their impact on the 

aquatic community is not well known.

Long-term Impacts

Potential long-term impacts include continued competition between non-native trout and native brook 

trout and competition with such interjurisdictional fish species as alewife and American eel. We are 

working with partners to improve water quality and fish passage in the Carmans River watershed. If they 
Fish Stocking

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 C-45

improve to the point where the spawning of non-native trout is documented and quality habitat for native 

brook trout is restored, the stocking of non-native trout species may be curtailed in favor of a “heritage” 

strain of brook trout. 

Cumulative Impacts

We expect no negative, cumulative impacts.

Public Review and Comment

We are publishing this compatibility determination for review concurrently with the comprehensive 

conservation plan (CCP). We have discussed this use at CCP public meetings and have identified it in 

our CCP Planning Update. We have already received several comments. Further opportunities for public 

comment will run concurrently with the public review and comment period of the draft CCP and its 

environmental assessment.

Determination

 Use is not compatible

X Use is compatible, with the following stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

 We are working with partners to improve water quality in the Carmans River and its tributaries. If it improves 

to the level where native brook trout populations could be established or enhanced, we would reconsider the 

stocking of rainbow trout and brown trout, which prey upon and compete with brook trout. 

 The NYSDEC will stock only brown and rainbow trout from a state or state-approved hatchery between 

Montauk Highway and the Long Island Railroad Bridge. The NYSDEC must guarantee the trout as diseasefree and suitable for human consumption, and stock them just before or during the trout-angling season in the 

spring to reduce their competition with native species. All accidents and injuries associated with the stocking 

program on refuge lands must be reported to refuge personnel as soon as possible, but in any case before 

leaving the refuge.

Justification

The stocking of non-native trout species will be subject to the stipulations above, and will not interfere 

with the primary purposes for which the refuge was established. The stocking program has no 

documented negative impacts, and it increases recreational opportunities for anglers. The stocking of 

non-native trout will not materially interfere with or detract from fulfilling the mission of the System 

or the purposes of the refuge. Should additional information become available, we will reconsider this 

compatibility determination. 
Appendix C

C-46 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Project Leader 

(Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Regional Chief 

(Signature) (Date)

Mandatory 15 year Re-evaluation Date 

 (Date)

Literature Cited

Faust, K.D. and R.J. White. 1981. Competition between brook trout and brown trout for positions in a 

Michigan stream. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 38:1220-1227.

Fausch, K.D. 1989. Do gradient and temperature affect distributions of, and interactions between brook 

charr (Salvilinus fontinalis) and other resident salmonids in streams? Biology of charrs and masu 

salmon. H. Kawanabe, F. Yamazaki, and D.L.G. Noakes. Physiological Ecology of Japan Vol. 1: 

303-322. 
Research by Non-Service Personnel

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 C-47

Compatibility Determination

Use

Research by Non-Service Personnel

Refuge Name

Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Dates Established

Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge 1947

Elizabeth A. Morton National Wildlife Refuge 1954

Conscience Point National Wildlife Refuge 1964

Target Rock National Wildlife Refuge 1967

Amagansett National Wildlife Refuge 1968

Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge 1968

Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge 1968

Lido Beach Wildlife Management Area 1969

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, we, our) acquired the Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge 

(refuge) in 1947 as a donation from Cecile and Maurice Wertheim, who had maintained the area as a 

private waterfowl hunting reserve. We established that refuge under the authorities of the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 715d) and the Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1).

Between 1954 and 1968, we also established these refuges under the authority of the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act: Conscience Point, Elizabeth A. Morton, Oyster Bay, Seatuck, and Target Rock. We 

acquired the property for Amagansett refuge in 1968 under the authority of “An Act Authorizing the 

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife, or other purposes.” The Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act (16 U.S.C. § 661) provides the authority to establish the Lido Beach WMA in the Town of Hempstead 

in December 1969. 

Refuge Purposes

 “...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” 

(16 U.S.C. §715d).

 “...incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development” (16 U.S.C. §460k-1).

 “the protection of natural resources” (16 U.S.C. §460k-1).

 “the conservation of endangered species or threatened species...” (16 U.S.C. §460k-1).

 “...their particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program” (16 U.S.C 

§667b).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission

“The mission of the System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (Pub. L. 

105–57; 111 Stat. 1252).
Appendix C

C-48 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Description of Use

(a) What is this use? Is it a priority public use? The use is research conducted by non-Service 

personnel. It is not a priority public use of the National Wildlife Refuge System under the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd–668ee) as amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.

(b) Where would the use be conducted? The locations of the research will vary by project. Usually, a 

research project is limited to a particular habitat type, plant or wildlife species. On occasion, research 

projects may encompass an assemblage of habitat types, plants or wildlife. We will limit the locations 

of research to those areas of the refuge necessary to conduct any specific, approved research project. 

Nevertheless, we may make the entire Complex available for specific, scientific research projects that 

require it.

(c) When would the use be conducted? The timing of the research will depend on the project. We may 

allow scientific research on the refuge throughout the year. A research project could be short-term in 

design, requiring one or two visits over the course of a few days. Others could be multi-year studies that 

require daily visits to the study site. The timing of each research project will be limited to the minimum 

required to complete it. If a research project overlaps a refuge hunting season, special precautions or 

limitations may be required to ensure the safety of researchers or staff.

(d) How would the use be conducted? The methods of a research project will depend on the project. 

We will evaluate the methods of each research project before allowing it on the refuge. We will not allow 

any research project if the refuge manager has not approved its study plan, or if the refuge manager 

determines the project may adversely affect wildlife, wildlife habitat, on-going or planned refuge 

management activities, previously approved research programs, approved priority public uses, or public 

health and safety.

(e) Why is this use being proposed? The purposes of research by non-Service personnel are to further 

the understanding of the natural resources and improve the management of those resources on the 

refuges or in the System. We will assign priority to research applicable to wildlife, habitat, or public use 

management on or near the refuges of the Complex.

Most research projects approved on the refuges of the Complex have examined the management of avian 

resources, mosquitoes, water quality, public uses, and rare, threatened, or endangered species. Research 

by non-Service staff now concentrates on five of its refuges and one unit: the Seatuck refuge, Oyster Bay 

refuge, Target Rock refuge, Conscience Point refuge, Wertheim refuge and its Sayville Unit. Much of that 

research focuses on the management of migratory birds, but the refuge manager has also approved other, 

more specific research projects. Much of the research on the Complex is also part of larger, landscapebased projects. 

At the Wertheim refuge, the refuge manager has issued special use permits (SUPs) for such research as

 investigating and evaluating Open Marsh Water Management (OMWM) techniques in wetlands to increase the 

biological control of breeding mosquitoes and eliminate or drastically reduce the spraying of insecticides,

 investigating deer populations and habitat use,

 investigating the American eel populations in the Carmans River, and

 investigating the habitat use and food consumption of American black ducks in winter. 
Research by Non-Service Personnel

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 C-49

At the Seatuck and Conscience Point refuges and the Sayville Unit, research has included genetic work on 

sandplain gerardia (Agalinus acuta) and investigations of migratory bird populations. At the Oyster Bay 

refuge, research has focused on studying water quality and determining its impacts on the native oyster 

population in the bay. At the Target Rock refuge, research has included studies of mosquito and tick 

populations. Although the refuge manager has not issued SUPs for biological research on the Morton or 

Amagansett refuges, future research there is likely. 

We will encourage and support research and management studies on refuge lands that improve and 

strengthen our natural resource management decisions. The refuge manager will encourage and assign 

priority to research that

 relates to approved refuge objectives, clearly improves land management, and promotes adaptive management

 enables better management of the Nation’s biological resources

 is generally considered important to agencies of the Department of Interior, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, the Refuge System, and State Fish and Wildlife Agencies, or

 addresses important management issues or demonstrates techniques for managing species or habitats.

The refuge manager may also consider research for other purposes, which may not relate directly to 

refuge-specific objectives, but would contribute to the broader enhancement, protection, use, preservation 

or management of populations of fish, wildlife and plants, and their natural diversity in the region or 

flyway. Those proposals also must conform to Service compatibility policy.

We may develop a list of research needs that we will provide to prospective researchers or organizations 

upon request. Our support of research directly related to refuge objectives may take the form of funding, 

such in-kind services as housing or use of other facilities, staff assistance with the project in collecting 

data, providing historical records, conducting management treatments, or providing other assistance as 

appropriate.

Availability of Resources 

Staff time spent reviewing research proposals and administering permits will be minimal. In most cases, 

a research project may require an hour or two of staff time to coordinate all aspects of a project, including 

review of proposal, issuing a Special Use Permit, coordinating access to the refuge, and reviewing project 

results. Currently, a senior refuge biologist spends an average of one week a year working full time on 

research projects conducted by outside researchers. At an hourly wage of approximately $38 (for a GS11), this adds up to about $1,520.00 annually for resources spent on outside research. Researchers will be 

required to furnish their own materials and supplies. Supplies and staff time associated with cooperative 

studies involving the refuge and other agencies or universities should be covered by appropriate refuge/

joint funds.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

Disturbance to wildlife and vegetation by researchers could occur through observation, a variety of 

wildlife capture techniques, banding, and accessing the study area by foot or vehicle. Many studies have 

demonstrated adverse effects of human disturbances, including researcher activity, on wildlife species. 

For example, Tremblay and Ellison (1979) documented that visits to black-crowned night-heron colonies 

just before or during laying provoked abandonment of newly constructed nests or either predation of 

eggs or abandonment of eggs followed by predation. In some instances, investigator disturbance caused 

mortality of young. Ellison and Cleary (1978) studied the double-crested cormorant to assess the influence 

of investigators visiting colonies during the breeding season. They discovered that frequent visits caused 

nest abandonment, predation by gulls, and discouraged late nesting birds from settling in disturbed 
Appendix C

C-50 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

experimental colonies. Human presence can affect foraging behavior such as location, duration, and 

time of day (Burger and Gochfield 1991). It is possible that direct or indirect mortality could result as a 

byproduct of research activities. If the research project is conducted with professionalism and integrity, 

potential adverse impacts are likely to be outweighed by the knowledge gained about an entire species, 

habitat or public use.

However, not all research activities negatively affect a species or its habitat. Frederick and Collopy (1989) 

found no differences in reproductive parameters in nests of tricolored herons visited frequently (16 times) 

to those visited infrequently (7 times). Parsons and Burger (1982) reported no differences in blackcrowned night heron chick weight between chicks which were handled every two days and those which 

were handled once during the study.

Studies suggest that the adverse effects of human disturbance are species specific (Gutzwiller et al. 

1998). Thus different species are affected by human presence in specific factors such as timing, location, 

and duration (Gutzwiller and Stanley 1999). Knowing what factors disrupt a species, the probability of 

disturbing that species during research can be decreased. For instance, Erwin (1989) and Buckley and 

Buckley (1976) provided management guidelines to minimize disturbance to colonial nesting waterbirds 

by the general public and investigators. By restricting this activity and monitoring researchers, impacts 

are expected to be minimal.

Public Review and Comment

We are publishing this determination for review concurrently with our comprehensive conservation plan 

(CCP). We have discussed this use at CCP public meetings, and have identified it in our CCP Planning 

Update. We have already received several comments. The public review and comment period of the draft 

plan and associated environmental assessment will offer additional opportunities for comment.

Determination

 Use is not compatible

X Use is compatible, with the following stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

 We will require all non-Service researchers to submit a detailed research proposal following Service policy 

(FWS Refuge Manual Chapter 4, Section 6, as may be amended). The refuge must receive at least 45 days to 

review proposals before research starts. If the collection of wildlife is involved, researchers must give the refuge 

60 days to review their proposal. We will assign priority and approve proposals based on their need, benefit, 

compatibility, and funding required.

 We will issue SUPs for all research conducted by non-Service personnel. Each SUP will list the conditions the 

refuge manager determines necessary to ensure compatibility, and identify a schedule for progress reports and 

the submittal of a final report or scientific paper. 

 We may ask regional refuge biologists, other Service divisions, state agencies or non-governmental 

organizations and biologists to provide additional review and comment on any research proposal. 

 We will require all researchers to obtain appropriate state and federal permits.

 All research-related SUPs will contain a statement regarding the Service policy on the disposition of biotic 

specimen. Our current policy states “You may use specimens collected under this permit, any components of 

any specimens (including natural organisms, enzymes, genetic material or seeds), and research results derived 
Research by Non-Service Personnel

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 C-51

from collected specimens for scientific or educational purposes only, and not for commercial purposes unless you 

have entered into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with us. We prohibit the sale 

of collected research specimens or other transfers to third parties. Breach of any of the terms of this permit 

will be grounds for revocation of this permit and denial of future permits. Furthermore, if you sell or otherwise 

transfer collected specimens, any components thereof, or any products or any research results developed from 

such specimens or their components without a CRADA, you will pay us a royalty rate of 20 percent of gross 

revenue from such sales. In addition to such royalty, we may seek other damages and injunctive relief against 

you” (USFWS 1999). 

 We may terminate any research project at any time for non-compliance with the SUP conditions, or modify, 

redesign, relocate or terminate it, if the refuge manager determines that it is causing unanticipated adverse 

impacts on wildlife, wildlife habitat, approved priority public uses, or other refuge management activities.

Justification

Scientific research will comply with the stipulations listed, and will not interfere with the primary 

purposes for which the refuges were established. We encourage approved research to further 

understanding of refuge natural resources. It adds greatly to the information available for refuge 

managers in making proper decisions. Research conducted by non-Service personnel will not materially 

interfere with or detract from the mission of the System or the purposes for which the refuges were 

established.

Project Leader 

(Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Regional Chief 

(Signature) (Date)

Mandatory 2 year Re-evaluation Date 

 (Date)

Literature Cited

Buckley, P. and F. Buckley. 1976. Guidelines for the protection and management of colonially nesting 

waterbirds. North Atlantic Regional Office. NPS. Boston, MA 54 pp.

Burger, J. and M. Gochfield. 1991. Human activity influence and diurnal and nocturnal foraging of 

Sanderlings. Condor. 93: 259-265.

Ellison L. N. and L. Cleary. 1978. Effects of human disturbance on breeding of double-crested 

cormorants. Auk 95:510-517.

Erwin, R. M. 1989. Responses to human intruders by birds nesting in colonies: Experimental results and 

management guidelines. Col. Waterbirds 12(1):104-108.
Appendix C

C-52 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Frederick, R. B. and M. W. Collopy. 1989. Researcher disturbance in colonies of wading birds: Effects of 

frequency of visit and egg-marking on reproductive parameters. Col. Waterbirds. 12(2):152-157.

Gutzwillwer, K. J. and H. A. Stanley. 1999. Spatial extent of human-intrusion effects on subalpine bird 

distributions. Condor. 101: 378-389.

Gutzwiller, K. J., H. A. Marcum, H. B. Harvey, J. D. Roth, and S. H. Anderson. 1998. Bird tolerance to 

human intrusion in Wyoming montane forests. Condor. 100: 519-527.

Parsons, K. C. and J. Burger. 1982. Human disturbance and nestling behavior in black-crowned night 

herons. Condor 84: 184-187. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. National Wildlife Refuge System - Refuge Manual Dept. of Interior, 

USFWS, Washington, D.C.

Tremblay, J. and L. N. Ellison. 1979. Effects of human disturbance on breeding of black-crowned nightherons. Auk 96:364-369.
Beach Use/Sunbathing

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 C-53

Compatibility Determination

Use

Beach Use/Sunbathing 

Refuge Names

Amagansett National Wildlife Refuge 

Elizabeth A. Morton National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, we, our) acquired the Amagansett refuge in 1968 by 

accepting the transfer of a former U.S. Coast Guard lifeboat station. We acquire land for the refuge under 

the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. §§715–715r).

We acquired the Morton refuge in 1954 as a gift from Elizabeth A. Morton. We also acquire land for the 

refuge under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act.

Refuge Purposes

 “...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” 

(16 U.S.C. §715d).

 “...their particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program” (16 U.

S.C §667b).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission

“The mission of the System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (Pub. L. 

105–57; 111 Stat. 1252).

Description of Use

(a) What is the use? Is it a priority public use? The use is sunbathing on the refuge beaches. It is not 

a priority public use of the National Wildlife Refuge System under the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. §§668dd–668ee), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997. However, it is a traditional use at both refuges, mainly from June 

through August. 

(b) Where would the use be conducted? Amagansett refuge, located in the Town of Easthampton, NY, 

consists of 36 acres of barrier beach habitat, including a double dune system, swales, and sandy beach 

area (figure C-1). In the summer of 2005, for the first time in several years, a pair of piping plovers 

(Charadrius melodus) nested on the beachfront and successfully fledged two young. Refuge staff erected 

signs and symbolic fencing around the nesting area to comply with our Piping Plover Recovery Plan 

(USFWS 1996). The State of New York lists piping plovers as endangered. The Federal Government lists 

the Atlantic Coast population of piping plovers as threatened. 

At the Amagansett refuge, sunbathing occurs on the sandy part of the beach adjacent to the refuge and its 

waters. Although that part of the beach is inaccessible from refuge land, it is accessible from properties 

along the beach adjacent to the refuge. The boundary of the refuge part of the beach extends to the mean 

high tide line. We will close the areas where piping plovers nest to public use. The rest of the beach will be 

open for sunbathing.
Appendix C

C-54 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

The 187-acre Morton refuge, in the Town of Southampton, NY, encompasses a variety of habitats. We will 

permit walking along the 1.2-mile Wild Birds Nature Trail (figure C-2) and along the 1.5-mile peninsula 

between the Noyack and Little Peconic bays. The sandy and rocky beaches that fringe that peninsula 

provide nesting habitat for ospreys, piping plovers, and least terns between April 1 and August 31 each 

year. Piping plovers have nested at the refuge each year for the last decade. In 2005, six pairs of piping 

plovers attempted to nest at the refuge, but due to predation and inclement weather, fledged only four 

young. The least tern colony at the refuge successfully fledged 28 young in 2005, down from the 60 young 

that fledged in 2003. 

At the Morton refuge, sunbathing occurs on the sandy portion of the refuge beach. One parking lot with 

a nature trail provides access to the beach. Sunbathing tends to concentrate near that access. During the 

piping plover nesting season, normally from April 1 to August 31, we close the refuge beach north of the 

overlook to all public use. The small section of the beach adjacent to the overlook is open year-round for 

public use.

(c) When would the use be conducted? We would open the Amagansett beachfront to unrestricted 

sunbathing during the non-nesting season, from September 1 through March 31. From April 1 to 

September 1, we may close parts of the beachfront to public entry, post “Nesting Area Closed” signs, and 

erect symbolic fencing. That closure helps ensure high-quality, undisturbed nesting habitat for piping 

plovers and other beach nesting migratory birds of management concern (e.g., least terns). 

At the Morton refuge, the Wild Birds Nature Trail, including the loop and to the beach, will be open daily 

to pedestrian travel from half an hour before sunrise to half an hour after sunset: i.e., daylight hours 

only. The 1.5-mile beachfront peninsula will be open to sunbathing during the non-nesting season, from 

September 1 through March 31, during daylight hours. From April 1 to September 1, we will close the 

beachfront north of the overlook to all public entry. That closure helps ensure high-quality, undisturbed 

nesting habitat for piping plovers and other beach nesting migratory birds of management concern (e.g., 

least terns). Symbolic signs will designate the closed area.

(d) How would be use be conducted? We would conduct the use much as we conduct it today. We allow 

access along designated nature trails to the beachfront. We close the dunes and vegetated areas on the 

Complex, including the salt marsh, to public entry throughout the year. Walking on the dunes can harm 

stabilizing vegetation and cause the erosion and loss of important wildlife habitat. “Closed Area” signs 

mark the areas closed to public entry. 

Visitors traveling on foot typically enter the refuges on their entrance roads, and walk down the trail to 

the beach. At the Morton refuge, we charge a minimal entrance fee for all persons entering the refuge. 

(e) Why is this use being proposed? Thousands of visitors each year enjoy this traditional activity on 

refuge beaches. About 60 percent of the visitors at the refuges are beach users.

Availability of Resources 

 To provide beach access, the Morton refuge staff and summer interns spend approximately one day per 

week clearing trails and performing routine maintenance and general upkeep to maintain the parking lot, 

kiosk, bathrooms, hiking trail and overlook. The kiosk provides important material and information to 

help guide refuge visitors to locations of interest. It requires regular maintenance and the replenishment 

of its brochures.

Due to the dynamic nature of the beach ecosystem, all of those facilities annually require more than 

400 hours of maintenance. We estimate the annual cost of that maintenance at $9,000, most of which goes 
Beach Use/Sunbathing

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 C-55

to salaries. Maintenance materials and other supplies require additional funds. Collecting approximately 

$4,000 each year in entrance fees partly offsets those costs. 

One law enforcement officer patrols weekly during the summer to ensure that visitors comply with refuge 

regulations. Most of our law enforcement time is associated with beach users during the summer months. 

We estimate its cost at $4,000 per year. 

The Amagansett refuge does not maintain any public facilities. The refuge staff spends very little time on 

maintenance. In the summer, a refuge volunteer is available to monitor plover nesting activity.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

Direct Impacts

Public use of the beaches at the Morton and Amagansett refuges is highest from June through August. 

That high concentration may displace wildlife, including the federal-listed threatened piping plover, which 

now nests in low numbers at both beaches. Chronic disturbance partly or entirely may displace a bird 

from an area (Pfister et al. 1992). In 1996, several national wildlife refuges, including the Parker River 

refuge, investigated the impacts of human disturbance on migrating shorebirds. That study found that 

shorebirds using the beach are more likely to respond to human disturbance (82 percent) than those using 

impoundments (30 percent). It also found that, compared with other refuge and non-refuge sites, the 

disturbance of shorebirds on the Parker River beach is among the highest (8 times per hour) (Harrington 

and Drilling 1996).

Indirect Impacts

Heavy use of the beachfront can dry out the sand and contribute to beach erosion. Trash left on the beach, 

particularly food or wrappers can attract predators that feed on nesting piping plovers and least terns or 

roosting shorebirds. The removal of shells and other natural debris from the refuge beach may also have 

indirect biological and ecological effects. As they decompose, shells contribute to the nutrient cycle of the 

beach ecosystem. They create microhabitats that support invertebrate populations, which are important 

prey for nesting and migrating shorebirds.

Public Review and Comment

We are publishing this compatibility determination for review concurrently with our comprehensive 

conservation plan (CCP). We have discussed this use at our CCP public meetings and have identified it in 

our CCP Planning Update. We have already received several comments. The public review and comment 

period of the draft plan and associated environmental assessment will offer additional opportunities for 

comment.

Determination

 Use is not compatible

X Use is compatible, with the following stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

 We will continue beach closures to avoid or minimize the disturbance of nesting piping plovers and least terns at 

the Morton refuge, and consider beach closures at the Amagansett refuge.

 We will continue the volunteer plover warden program to educate the public about the importance of minimizing 

the disturbance of piping plovers and least terns.
Appendix C

C-56 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

 Visitors will access the beach only via the established trail. We will enforce all closures of dune areas to minimize 

disturbance.

 We will monitor shorebird use during fall migration to better assess foraging and resting areas.

 We will enforce federal regulations prohibiting the removal of any plant, animal, or parts thereof from the 

refuge, except under a Special Use Permit.

 We know that beach use disturbs shorebirds that are resting, feeding, and migrating through national wildlife 

refuges. We do not know the impact of that disturbance on shorebird health and survival. We will continue to 

look into this issue and, as new information becomes available, may further restrict or eliminate this use in the 

future. 

Justification

We have determined this use to be compatible at its current level, with the stipulations listed above. 

Under those conditions, we do not expect the use to materially interfere with or detract from the mission 

of the System, diminish the purposes for which the refuges were established, pose significant adverse 

effects on refuge resources, or cause any undue administrative burden.

Project Leader 

(Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Regional Chief 

(Signature) (Date)

Mandatory 10 year Re-evaluation Date 

 (Date)

Literature Cited

Harrington, B.A., and N. Drilling. 1996. Investigations of effects of disturbance to migratory shorebirds 

at migration stopover sites on the U.S. Atlantic Coast. A report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Region 5, Migratory Bird Program. Hadley, Massachusetts. 87 pp.

Pfister, C. B.A. Harrington, and M. Levine. 1992. The impact of human disturbance on shorebirds at a 

migration staging area. Biological Conservation. 60(2): 115–126.
Mosquito Management

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 C-57

Compatibility Determination

Use

Mosquito Management

Refuge Names

Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge

Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities

The authorities for establishing and acquiring land at the refuges are “An Act Authorizing the Transfer 

of Certain Real Property for Wildlife, or other purposes” (16 U.S.C. § 667b; Pub. L. 80–537) and the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 715–715r).

Refuge Purposes

 “...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” (16 U.S.C. 

§715d).

 “...incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development” (16 U.S.C. §460k-1).

 “the protection of natural resources” (16 U.S.C. §460k-1).

 “the conservation of endangered species or threatened species...” (16 U.S.C. §460k-1).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission

“The mission of the System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (Pub. L. 

105–57; 111 Stat. 1252).

Description of Use

(a) What is the use? Is it a priority use? The use is mosquito management, which includes surveillance 

and, if warranted, control. Mosquito management is not a priority public use of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd668ee) as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Suffolk County Vector Control (SCVC) is the agency tasked with the management or control of 

mosquitoes, particularly those that breed in salt marshes. This is a controversial topic among Suffolk 

County residents. We are working with SCVC to manage mosquito populations more vigorously while 

minimizing impacts on fish and wildlife resources.

One alternative to chemical control is Open Marsh Water Management (OMWM). In cooperation with 

SCVC and the Suffolk County Heath Department, we started an OMWM demonstration and pilot 

project at the Wertheim refuge in 2004. Its goals are to reduce mosquito breeding and enhance the 

wetlands: restore wetland hydrology, increase plant diversity, and create wildlife habitat (see figure C-5). 

The project examines marsh dynamics and details the effectiveness of different marsh treatments in 

controlling mosquitoes. We have scheduled the construction phase of the project for completion in March 

2006. We are not proposing physical marsh manipulations at the Seatuck refuge.

Mosquito monitoring or control by the aerial application of larvicides or adulticides by SCVC in the tidal 

salt marshes of the Wertheim refuge and the Seatuck refuge are not priority public uses of the System. 

However, our interim “National Wildlife Refuge System Mosquito Management Guidelines for 2005” 
Appendix C

C-58 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

states “when necessary to protect human, wildlife, or domestic animal health, the Service will reduce 

mosquitoes associated health threats using an integrated pest management (IPM) approach, including 

when practical compatible, non-pesticide actions that reduce mosquito production. Except in officially 

determined health emergencies, any procedure the Service uses to reduce mosquito production will 

meet compatibility requirements as found in 603 FW 2 and must give full consideration to the safety and 

integrity of non-target organisms and communities, including federally listed threatened and endangered 

species.” 

(b) Where would the use be conducted? Mosquito surveillance or control would be conducted in 

approximately 450 acres of salt marsh and open water at the Wertheim refuge and 67 acres of salt marsh 

and open water at the Seatuck refuge. If approved by the refuge manager, SCVC would apply larvicides 

aerially in designated breeding areas of the marshes at both refuges (see maps C-3 and C-4), or control 

mosquitoes through source reduction methods such as OMWM. The OMWM demonstration project is 

located in the eastern marshes of the Wertheim refuge. 

(c) When would the use be conducted? Surveillance activities associated with this use would be 

conducted from May through September under the conditions of this compatibility determination and 

a special use permit (SUP). Any mosquito control would be based on surveillance data. The SCVC 

would treat refuge marshes with larvicides only after refuge personnel have determined that mosquito 

larvae populations are widespread within a marsh unit, and in numbers exceeding 0.2 larvae per dip, a 

level found to result in an increased risk of disease transmission. Other factors in determining whether 

treatment would be allowed include marsh hydrology (drying vs. flooding), rainfall, temperature, in-star 

larval stages and the history of spraying each marsh unit.

In the Wertheim refuge eastern marshes, the construction of the OMWM demonstration project is limited 

to the months of January through March. The mosquito breeding surveillance, wildlife monitoring, and 

other scientific data collection will be conducted from May through October. (figure C-6). Three years of 

post-construction monitoring of each treatment and control site will likely be required. 

(d) How would the use be conducted? 

Ongoing Monitoring

Currently, SCVC and FWS personnel share the responsibility for conducting weekly mosquito larvae 

surveys using dip samplers from May through September at seven monitoring units at the Wertheim 

refuge and six at the Seatuck refuge. SCVC will assume the sole responsibility for conducting those 

surveys starting in 2008. The sampling consists of walking a prescribed route through each salt marsh 

unit and periodically taking a dip sample, usually 25 to 50 dip samples per unit, and documenting the 

number of sample dips, larvae, age classes, marsh description, and GPS location. SCVC compiles those 

data and provides them to the refuge manager. If the criteria for a specific unit are met—breeding 

density, marsh hydrology, weather, in-star stage, and temperature—the refuge manager can approve the 

aerial spraying of larvicide that week at that unit. Each unit can be treated only once per week. Typically, 

SCVC makes 4 to 10 larvicide applications a year on refuge units.

As part of the mosquito monitoring program, the refuge manager permits SCVC to operate mosquito 

adult traps on the refuge from May through October. We use those traps to gauge trends in adult 

mosquito numbers, species composition (which provides information on where they are being produced), 

and periodically send out specimens to be checked for diseases. If those samples return positive results 

for the potential transmittal of health risks, and a public health emergency is declared by the appropriate 

public health agency official within an 8-mile radius of the refuge, the refuge manager may approve 

the aerial spraying of adulticide after consulting with the regional supervisor. After consulting with 

officials from SCVC and the public health department, the refuge manager will have the final approval of 
Mosquito Management

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 C-59

treatment areas on the refuge. Adulticide will be sprayed only on the upland sections of the refuge, not in 

its wetlands.

SCVC is required to report on all mosquito control activities on the refuge for the year. That report 

usually lists treatment days, units treated on the refuge, the number of acres treated, and the type and 

quantity of larvicide applied. Tables C-1 and C-2 provide data on the number of acres treated with various 

larvicides, the pounds of active ingredients, and the number of treatments from 1990–2005.

Demonstration Project Activities

The OMWM demonstration project at the Wertheim refuge has two components: construction and 

monitoring. The construction component includes creating tidal creeks, tidal channels, shallow spurs, 

sill channels, and ponds. In addition, many old grid ditches will be filled, and some mosquito-breeding 

depressions will be regraded using materials excavated during pond construction. Those recommended 

alterations are based on the hydrology, vegetation, habitat needs for fish and wildlife, existing mosquito 

breeding sites, and anticipated new breeding sites that would develop once the marsh hydrology has been 

restored.

To assess the effects of the project on fish, wildlife and vegetation, we have established treatment 

and control sites in four habitat blocks (Areas 1 through 4). The New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation is requiring up to 3 years of post-construction monitoring as a condition of 

permit. Details about the construction and the monitoring plan are provided in the Suffolk County Vector 

Control and Wetlands Management Long Term and Generic Environmental Impact Statement Task 12 

for the Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge Open Marsh Water Management Demonstration Project Data 

Report 2003–2004.

(e) Why is the use being proposed? We are proposing this use because one of the management goals for 

refuge marshes is to provide quality habitat for migratory birds, marsh dwelling water birds, particularly 

shorebirds, and the American black duck, while at the same time, in the most environmentally sensitive 

manner possible, minimize significant hatching of biting mosquitoes, thereby reducing the potential for 

the transmission of disease to humans and wildlife. Both the Wertheim and Seatuck refuges are close to 

high-density residential areas where interactions among humans and mosquitoes are a health concern.

Availability of Resources 

No additional resources will be needed to complete the project. Preparing annual Pesticide Use Proposals, 

Pesticide Use Reports, and Special Use Permits, and reviewing monitoring reports and annual action 

reports are functions that we can accomplish at the present levels of refuge funding and staffing.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

This use has three principal, potential impacts on refuge lands, waters or interests: the disturbance of 

wildlife caused by the aerial application of larvicides, the impacts on wildlife from the periodic elimination 

of mosquito larvae from the salt marsh community, and the impacts of larvicides on non-target organisms. 

All three potential impacts are mitigated by allowing treatments of the marsh only when the criteria 

for spraying described above have been met, and by requiring the refuge manager’s approval. Thus, 

instead of weekly treatments for 20 consecutive weeks, as at most Long Island salt marshes, the refuge 

salt marsh typically receives less than half that treatment level. The disturbance of wildlife by aircraft 

usually lasts only for 20 minutes per salt marsh unit treated, and likely produces fewer disturbances than 

a ground sprayer. Larvicide treatments are more target-specific and less persistent in the environment 

than most chemical insecticides, and thus, affect the salt marsh biota less (see “Literature Cited,” below).
Appendix C

C-60 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

We also reduce the level of larvicide treatment needed at the refuges by managing the salt marsh as 

distinct units, monitoring their larvae populations weekly, and allowing treatments only when marsh 

conditions warrant treatment and widespread mosquito breeding has been documented.

The potential impacts of the OMWM demonstration project consist of the disturbance, displacement, 

and potential mortality of wildlife during construction, landscape or habitat alterations, hydrologic 

changes, soil compaction, and in some areas (e.g., fish ponds) reduced vegetation. Specialized, low ground 

pressure equipment is used during construction to mitigate such factors as vegetation trampling and 

soil compaction. Measures are in place to avoid or contain discharges of pollutants into the project areas 

during construction.

We designed the monitoring program to assess the effects of construction on fish, wildlife, vegetation, and 

their habitats to ensure that the proposed action results in quality habitat for trust species. We integrate 

the results of that program into the design and construction phases to reduce short-term impacts and 

ensure no long-term adverse impacts on trust species or their habitats. 

However, as in any habitat manipulation, some species will gain habitat and some will lose it. In the 

OMWM project, species that require areas of open water, such as wading birds, waterfowl and salt marsh 

fish species, will likely gain some habitat; species such as yellow rail that require high salt marsh may lose 

some habitat. We will conduct avian surveys before construction and, if necessary, make changes to avoid 

impacts on state- or federal-listed species or other species of concern. 

Public Review and Comment

We are publishing this compatibility determination for review concurrently with our comprehensive 

conservation plan (CCP). We have discussed this use at our CCP public meetings and in our CCP 

Planning Update. We have already received several comments. The public review and comment period of 

the draft plan and its environmental assessment will offer further opportunities for comments.

Determination

 Use is not compatible

X Use is compatible, with the following stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

 SCVC must apply for and receive a special use permit annually from the refuge manager.

 Larvae control is to be conducted only when the refuge staff has determined that breeding in specific units is 

widespread. 

 Mosquito surveillance sampling is to be conducted weekly.

 Only Service-approved larvicides may be applied on refuge marshes.

 SCVC will contact the refuge manager at least one day in advance of each application.

 The refuge manager has final approval over all larvae treatments.

 The refuge manager, in consultation with SCVC and public health officials, may authorize the application of 

mosquito adulticide on the refuges only after evidence shows a potential health risk to the public and wildlife and 

when the appropriate public health official declares a human health emergency.
Mosquito Management

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 C-61

 SCVC must provide the refuge manager with a final report before the end of the year of all control activities on 

the refuges. 

 We may rescind this compatibility determination (CD) at any time based on future Service policy determinations 

or scientific studies of the effects of larvicides on the environment or non-target organisms. 

 This CD will be reviewed when the Service finalizes its pending policy on mosquito management, and 

a new CD will be issued if this CD is not in full compliance with the new policy.

Justification

Mosquito control by SCVC at the refuges as indicated is compatible with the purposes for which the 

refuges were established. With the stipulations above, this use will not materially interfere with or detract 

from the mission of the System or the purpose for which the refuges were established. 

Project Leader 

(Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Regional Chief 

(Signature) (Date)

Mandatory 5 year Re-evaluation Date 

 (Date)

Literature Cited

Fleming, W.J.; Heinz, G.H.; Franson, J.C.; Rattner, B.A. 1985. Toxicity of Abate 4E in mallard ducklings 

and the influence of cold. Environ. Toxicology and Chemistry 4:193-200.

Fortin, C.; Marie, A.; and Leclair, R. 1987. The residual effect of Abate on nontarget communities. J. Am. 

Mosquito Control Assoication 3:282-288.

Lee, B.M.; and Scott, G.I. 1989. Acute Toxicity of Temephos, Fenoxycarb, Diflubenzuron, and Methoprene 

and Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis to the Mummichog. Bull. Environ. Contamination and 

Toxicology 43:827-832.

Marten, G.G.; Che, W.; and Bordes, E.S. 1993. Compatibility of cyclopoid copepods with mosquito 

insecticides. J. Am. Mosquito Control Association 9:150-154.

Mittal, P.K.; Adak, T.; and Sharma, V.P. 1991. Acute toxicity of certain organochlorine, organophosphorus, 

synthetic pyrethroid and microbial insecticides to the mosquito fish. Indian J. of Malariology 

28:167-170.
Appendix C

C-62 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Parsons, J.T. and Surgeoner, G.A. 1991. Acute toxicities of permethrin, fenitrothion, carbaryl and 

carbofuran to mosquito larvae during sing pulse or multiple pulse exposures. Environ. Toxicology 

and Chemistry 10:1229-1233.

Purcell, B.H. 1981. Effects of Bacillus thuringiensis on Aedes taeniorhynchus and some nontarget 

organisms in the salt marsh. Mosquito News 41:476-484). 

Suffolk County Vector Control and Cashen & Associates. 2005. Suffolk County Vector Control and 

Wetlands Management Long Term and Generic Environmental Impact Statement Task 12 for the 

Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge Open Marsh Water Management Demonstration Project Data 

Report 2003 -2004.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Station Management Plan — Long Island, NY National Wildlife 

Refuges. Unpubl. Rept. 64pp.
Mosquito Management

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 C-63

Table C-1. Wertheim refuge acres treated with larvicides between 1990 and 2005.

Year of 

Treatment Pesticide Used Pounds of Ingredients Number of Acres Treated Number of Treatments

1990 VectoBac (CG) 30,000 lbs of AI/acre 3000 12 applications

1991 VectoBac(CG) 14,900 lbs of AI/acre 2250 9 applications 

1992 VectoBac (CG) 6,000 lbs of AI/acre 1750 7 applications 

1993 VectoBac (CG) 15,000 lbs of AI/acre 1500 6 applications

1994 VectoBac(CG) 31,700 lbs of AI/acre 6300 14 applications 

1995 Altosid

VectoBac (CG)

12 lbs of AI/acre

32,000 lbs of AI/acre

3600

2700

8 applications

6 applications

1996 VectoBac (CG)

Altosid 

Scourge

3, 600 lbs of AI/acre

14.42 lbs of AI/acre

600 fl. oz

520

3825

1000

1 application

8.5 applications

1 application 

(EEE) potential threat

1997 Altosid 19.56 lbs of AI 5175 11 applications

1998 Altosid

VectoBac (CG)

11.33 lbs of AI/acre

101.3 lbs of AI/acre

3735

450

9 applications

1 application

1999 VectoBac (AS)

Altosid

17.01 billion ITU

39 lbs of AI/acre

450

2925

1 application

6.5 applications

2000 Altosid 11.46 lbs of AI/acre 3,415 14 applications

2001 Altosid 20% Conc.

VectoBac (AS)

55 lbs of AI/acre

613.7 billion ITU

4,144

1013

15 applications

3 applications

2002 Altosid 20% Conc.

VectoBac (AS)

24 lbs of AI/acre

580 billion ITU

1, 769

960

9 applications

4 applications

2003 Altosid 20% Conc.

VectoBac(AS)

Scourge

10 lbs of AI/acre

38.82 billion ITU

1.27 lbs of AI/acre

3,728

642

1,010 

17 applications

4 applications

1 application

 (West Nile) potential threat

2004 Altosid 20% Conc.

VectoBac(AS)

2.4 lbs of AI/acre

283 billion ITU

926

468 

6 applications

2 applications

2005 Altosid 20% Conc.

VectoBac (AS)

2.8 lbs of AI/acre

10.68 billion ITU

1047

1475 

7 applications

8 applications
Appendix C

C-64 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Table C-2. Seatuck refuge acres treated with larvicides between 1990 and 2005.

Year of 

Treatment Pesticide Used Pounds of Ingredients Number of Acres Treated Number of Treatments

1990 VectoBac (CG) 10,500 lbs of AI/acre 1190 17 applications

1991 VectoBac(CG) 11,900 lbs of AI/acre 1190 17 applications 

1992 VectoBac (CG) 11,400 lbs of AI/acre 1190 17 applications 

1993 VectoBac (CG) 5,840 lbs of AI/acre 630 9 applications

1994 VectoBac(CG) 7,230 lbs of AI/acre 840 10 applications 

1995 Altosid

VectoBac (CG)

3 lbs of AI/acre

4,600 lbs of AI

910

420

13 applications

6 applications

1996 VectoBac (CG)

Altosid 

728 lbs of AI/acre

1.6 lbs of AI/acre

140

469

2 application

6 applications

1997 Altosid 2.18 lbs of AI/acre 651 9 applications

1998 Altosid 0.47 lbs of AI/acre 140 2 applications

1999 Altosid 1.6 lbs of AI/acre 490 7 applications

2000 Altosid 

VectoBac (AS)

2.8 lbs of AI/acre

38.7 billion ITU

834

49

10 applications

1 application

2001 Altosid 20% Conc.

VectoBac (AS)

2.23 lbs of AI/acre

139.5 billion ITU

663

230

12 applications

3 applications

2002 Altosid 20% Conc.

VectoBac (AS)

6.55 lbs of AI/acre

81.55 billion ITU

487

135

9 applications

4 applications

2003 Altosid 20% Conc.

VectoBac(AS)

1.92 lbs of AI/acre

6.055 billion ITU

713

100

4 applications

4 applications

2004 Altosid 20% Conc.

VectoBac(AS)

0.65 lbs of AI/acre

120.0 billion ITU

245

130

7 applications

3 applications

2005 Altosid 20% Conc.

VectoBac (AS)

0.49 lbs of AI/acre

1.92 billion ITU

182

265

4 applications

5 applications
Mosquito Management

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 C-65

Figure C-5. New OMWM demonstration 

wetland restoration project areas. 

Maps showing the proposed alterations 

to (a) area 1 and (b) area 2 of Wertheim’s 

East Marsh. Alterations include filling in 

mosquito ditches, creating tidal creeks, 

grading mosquito breeding depressions, 

and creating fish reservoirs for the 

purpose of reducing mosquito breeding. 

Source: Suffolk County Vector Control 

and Cashen & Associates.

Figure C-5 (a)

Figure C-5 (b)
Appendix C

C-66 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Map C-5. Locations of mosquito breeding and non-breeding sites at Wertheim NWR East and 

West Marshes for 2005.

Map C-4. Locations of mosquito breeding and non-breeding sites at Wertheim NWR East and 

West Marshes for 2004.
Mosquito Management

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 C-67

Figure C-6. Biological monitoring transect sites 

for the new OMWM demonstration wetland 

restoration project. 

(a) Monitoring transect sites for mosquito 

breeding, vegetation diversity, invertebrate 

composition, and soil. Source: Suffolk County 

Vector Control and Cashen & Associates. 

Figure C-6. Biological monitoring transect sites 

for the new OMWM demonstration wetland 

restoration project. 

(b) Surface water monitoring station 

locations to measure water salinity and 

stream water run-off. Source: Suffolk 

County Vector Control and Cashen & 

Associates. 

Figure C-6 (b)

Figure C-6 (a)
Appendix C

C-68 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Figure C-6. Biological monitoring transect sites 

for the new OMWM demonstration wetland 

restoration project.

(c) Locations of fish monitoring stations. 

Source: Suffolk County Vector Control and 

Cashen & Associates. 

Figure C-6 (c)
Appendix D

Wilderness Review

Conscience Point National Wildlife Refuge

© John and Karen Hollingsworth

Wilderness Review

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 D-1

The wilderness review process consists of three phases: inventory, study, and 

recommendation. The purposes of the inventory phase are:

• to identify areas of System lands and waters with wilderness character and establish 

these areas as Wilderness Study Areas;

• to identify areas of Refuge System lands and waters that do not qualify as WSAs; and

• document the inventory findings for the planning record.

WSAs are areas that meet the criteria for wilderness identified in the Wilderness 

Act. Section 2(c) provides the following definition.

“A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works 

dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth 

and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is 

a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to 

mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval 

character and influence, without permanent improvements or human 

habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural 

conditions, and which: (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily 

by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially 

unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive 

and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land 

or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an 

unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological or 

other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.”

Permanent roads are prohibited in wilderness under Section 4(c) of the Act, so 

WSAs must also be roadless. For the purposes of the wilderness inventory, a 

“roadless area” is defined as:

“A reasonably compact area of undeveloped Federal land that possesses 

the general characteristics of a wilderness and within which there is no 

improved road that is suitable for public travel by means of four-wheeled, 

motorized vehicles intended primarily for highway use. A route maintained 

solely by the passage of vehicles does not constitute a road.”

In summary, the inventory to identify WSAs is based on an assessment of the 

following criteria: absence of roads, size, naturalness, and either outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation.

Because the largest refuge within the Long Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex is only 3,209 acres, the individual refuge units within the Complex were 

initially assessed based on the size criteria. The size criterion is satisfied for areas 

under Service jurisdiction in the following situations:

• An area with over 5,000 contiguous acres or 2,000 hectares. State and private land 

inholdings are not included in calculating acreage.

• A roadless island of any size. A roadless island is defined as a roadless area that is 

surrounded by permanent waters or that is markedly distinguished from surrounding 

lands by topographical or ecological features such as precipices, canyons, thickets, or 

swamps.

Introduction

Inventory 

Criteria
Appendix D

D-2 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

• An area of less than 5,000 contiguous acres that is of sufficient size as to make 

practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition, and of a size suitable 

for wilderness management.

• An area of less than 5,000 contiguous acres that is contiguous with a designated 

wilderness, recommended wilderness, or area of other Federal lands under wilderness 

review by the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, or National Park 

Service.

As shown in the following table, none of the Wilderness Inventory Areas in the 

Complex are large enough to meet the size criteria for a WSA. Inventory 

Conclusions

Wilderness 

Act of 1964

Wilderness Inventory Area Acreage in Fee Title

	 Amagansett NWR	 36 acres

	 Conscience Point NWR	 60 acres

	 Elizabeth A. Morton NWR	 187 acres

	 Lido Beach WMA	 22 acres

	 Oyster Bay NWR	 3,204 acres

	 Sayville Unit	 26 acres

	 Seatuck NWR	 209 acres

	 Target Rock NWR	 80 acres

	 Wertheim NWR	 2,572 acres

Public Law 88-577, approved September 3, 1964, directed the Secretary of the 

Interior, within 10 years, to review every roadless area of 5,000 or more acres 

and every roadless island, regardless of size, within National Wildlife Refuge and 

National Park Systems for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation 

System.
Appendix E

Refuge Operations Needs System (RONS) and Service Asset 

Maintenance Management System (SAMMS)

Eastern box turtles, a state species of special concern, are in decline mainly from habitat 

loss and collection for the pet trade (Niedzieleski 2002)

John Mosesso, Jr./NBII

Table E.1. Tier 1 Refuge Operations Needs System for the Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Project 

#

Project Title Costs $ (x1,000)

Year 1 Recurring FTE

Complex

95019 Resolve white-tailed deer impacts $62 $0

99005 Enhance Visitor Services for refuges (Outdoor Recreation Planner) $65 $86 1.00

94001 Improve wildfire and prescribed fire program (Refuge Manager) $65 $86 1.00

98011 Enhance productivity of endangered/threatened beach nesting birds $36 $0

93008 Develop a public outreach program (Outdoor Recreation Planner) $65 $102 1.00

98046 Wetland restoration and monitoring–Long Island Wetland Restoration Program 

(Equipment Operator) $65 $70 1.00

98019 Visitor Center/Office Complex (Outdoor Recreation Planner) $65 $73 1.00

00009 Create auto tour route for proposed visitor center $540 $0 0.00

Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge

93283 Provide basic resource and visitor protection (Refuge LE Officer) $65 $68 1.00

98002 Restore native grasslands and sandplain gerardia habitat $60 $0

93183 Provide basic resource and visitor protection (Refuge LE Officer) $65 $68 1.00

99003 Prepare and implement forest management plan (Resource Specialist) $65 $73 1.00

93301 Pine barren and wetland vegetative analyses using military satellite imagery 

(Biologist) $65 $86 1.00

99002 Prepare and implement a pine barren management plan 

(Resource Specialist) $65 $86 1.00

Target Rock National Wildlife Refuge

95021 Conduct surveys and post boundaries to enhance resource protection $100 $0

99001 Enhance natural resource monitoring program (Refuge Manager) $65 $86 1.00

95017 Provide safe public use trails (Maintenance Worker) $65 $63 1.00

93210 Enhance public service capabilities and refuge efficiency (Clerk) $65 $57 1.00

Refuge Operations Needs System

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 E-1
Appendix E

E-2 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Table E.2. Tier 2 Refuge Operations Needs System for the Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Project 

#

Project Title Costs $ (x1,000)

Year 1 Recurring FTE

Complex

98025 Investigate impacts of boat mooring and docks on refuge $100 $100

00010 Establish and maintain resource management program (Outdoor Recreation 

Planner) $156 $107 1.00

03001 Establish public outreach program for the New York Metro Area (Outreach 

Specialist) $191 $92 1.00

03003 Protect refuge resources and increase visitor safety (2 Refuge Officers) $100 $160 2.00

00005 Post boundaries of newly acquired lands $60 $0 0.00

98053 Develop public outreach video/CD $71 $0

00001 An assessment of piping plover productivity–Morton $53 $0 0.00

98007 Enhance wildlife habitat and restore derelict lands $36 $0

02001 Develop and implement forest management plan $35 $0 0.00

00007 Permanent, professional panels to convey information at annual public 

meetings $32 $0 0.00

99003 Increase visitor awareness of natural resources–complex brochures $81 $0 0.00

98016 Develop public outreach displays $68 $0

93176 Construct and maintain fire breaks to protect natural resources, visitors and 

the community $155 $3

00006 Information kiosk on wildlife of strand and marine habitats–Amagansett $37 $0 0.00

98003 Post boundaries to increase resource protection $100 $0

96016 Public outreach program–equipment $81 $0

02002 Enhance environmental education opportunities (term ORP) $69 $6

95010 Develop, establish, and maintain an effective public use and outreach program $67 $0

96010 Implement biomonitoring of environmental status and trends $59 $0

94012 Enhance and perform fish, wildlife, and habitat surveys $71 $0

93086 Improve nesting opportunities for waterfowl and migratory birds $36 $0

90028 Warm season grassland restoration $27 $76 0.00

93178 Enhance basic natural resource and visitor protection $78 $1

98017 Red fox investigation $48 $0

98033 Monitor migrant songbirds $36 $0

98086 Support public use program by protecting refuge property and equipment–

Morton $33 $0

98001 Implement wildlife, habitat, and public use projects $36 $0

98049 Eastern box turtle study $36 $0

93131 Prepare for oil spill response on Long Island $36 $0

98071 map underground utilities to improve safety $35 $0
Project 

#

Project Title Costs $ (x1,000)

Year 1 Recurring FTE

92000 Perform archaeological survey to support natural resource and public use 

programs $36 $0

93126 Communications basics–enhance station’s network, computers, and upgrade 

software $36 $0

93312 Reestablish waterfowl banding $36 $0

98085 Provide visitor services–construct comfort station at Wertheim $95 $0

Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge

95006 Restore shoreline habitats–Seatuck $61 $0

92214 Warm season grassland restoration–Seatuck and Wertheim $36 $0

00002 Control invasive plants in uplands $37 $0 0.00

96043 Protect heavy equipment used for Long Island Wetland Restoration–provide 

storage area $71 $0

99007 Protect endangered species–Sayville unit $119 $0 0.00

98035 Black duck habitat affinity investigation $97 $0

98038 Monitor shorebird abundance across Long Island $102 $0

98039 Restore derelict land for wildlife–Seatuck $32 $0

93083 Provide basic resource and visitor protection $75 $184 3.00

98023 Create freshwater impoundments for wildlife–Seatuck $46 $0

Target Rock National Wildlife Refuge

95022 Enhance protection of resources–Oyster Bay boundary survey $56 $0

98059 Legal inventory of manmade structures–Oyster Bay $102 $0

98080 Enhance resource protection (seasonal Refuge Officers) $102 $0

98040 Create recreational and educational information–Oyster Bay $58 $0

00012 Create fishing access for the Mill Pond Unit–Oyster Bay $32 $0 0.00

00011 Develop fishing access site and increased fishing opportunities–Target Rock $36 $8 0.00

98042 Improve visitor safety and services–public use facilities $49 $0

98093 Monitor the plankton and invertebrate community–Oyster Bay $55 $0

98029 Coliform investigation–Oyster Bay $66 $25

98024 Investigation of the impacts of boat docks, boating and mooring on natural 

resources $65 $0

96999 Mill Pond contaminant investigation $42 $0

98050 Waterfowl surveys for Long Island’s Great South Bay $38 $0

96013 Increase resource protection–patrol boat–Oyster Bay $59 $0

96998 Habitat affinities of wintering waterfowl on Long Island $54 $

Refuge Operations Needs System

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 E-3
Appendix E

E-4 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

 Table E.4. Service Asset Maintenance Management System for the Complex (Deferred Maintenance Backlog)

Location* Work Order

# 

Description $ WO 

Total Cost

52560 2006507008 Construct Headquarters/Visitor Center Facility - Centennial Legacy 

Project - [p/d] (child)

$500,000.00 

52560 2006506745 Construct Headquarters/Visitor Center Facility - Phase III (cc) (child) $2,595,000.00 

52560 2006507049 Construct Dormitory for Volunteer/Intern Quarters (p/d/c) (child) $750,000.00 

52560 2006507064 Construct Trail and Signs - Wertheim (child) $62,000.00 

52560 2006507066 Construct Trail, Fishing Access and Kiosk for the Wertheim National 

Wildlife Refuge (child)

$45,000.00 

52560 2006507044 Construct Headquarters/Visitor Center Facility - Centennial Legacy 

Project - Phase II [cc] (child)

$2,595,000.00 

52560 2006507015 Construct Visitor Contact at Morton (p/d/c) (child) $7,057,000.00 

52560 2005179563 Replace Bombay Hook Office Specialized Inspection - Archaelogy (child) $25,000.00 

52560 2005179566 Replace Long Island Office Specialized Inspection-Archaelogy (child) $25,000.00 

52561 2005259354 Remove Wertheim Old Buildings at Western Border - Contract (child) $66,000.00 

52561 2005179791 Replace Canary Cottage Quarters - Modular Contract (child) $740,000.00 

52561 2006507078 Construct Signs and Storage Facility at Sayville NWR (child) $124,000.00 

52561 2005259219 Rehabilitate Wertheim Nature Trails - Contract (child) $32,000.00 

52561 2005172515 Repair and Rehabilitate Security Fencing and Fire Breaks - Contract 

(child)

$92,700.00 

52561 2005214242 Remove and Replace Severely Deteriorated Shop/Fire Cache - Removal 

Contract (child)

$46,000.00 

52561 2005251579 Remove and Replace Severely Deteriorated Shop/Fire Cache - Replace 

Shop/Fire GSA (child)

$525,000.00 

52561 2005259363 Remove Quarters 1 and Office/Residence - Contract (child) $50,000.00 

52561 2005259314 Replace Wertheim Boat Dock - Contract (child) $26,000.00 

52561 2005259278 Replace Refuge Signs - Purchase Order (child) $66,000.00 

52561 2005259324 Rehabilitate Wellington Interior - Contract (child) $167,000.00 

52561 2005259296 Rehabilitate Security Alarm System at Complex - Contract (child) $26,000.00 

52561 2005259246 Replace Wertheim Squassux Landing Fencing and Gate - Purchase 

Order (child)

$26,000.00 

52561 2005259255 Replace Eentrance Signs - Purchase Order (child) $38,000.00 

52561 2005173897 Rehabilitate Wertheim Office/Residence - Engineering (child) $25,000.00 

52561 2005172509 Rehabilitate Wertheim Office/Residence - Contract (child) $171,853.00 

52561 2005259268 Remove Wellington Root Cellar, Corn Crib and Shed - Contract (child) $28,000.00 

52561 2005259334 Remove Old Concrete House Foundations - Contract (child) $27,000.00 

52564 2005255707 Replace Boundary Signs at Conscience Point NWR (child) $27,000.00 

52565 2006507068 Construct 3 Wildlife Viewing Pull-Offs and & 1 Observation Towerat 

Seatuck (child)

$129,000.00 

52565 2005213126 Rehabilitate Seatuck Exterior Office/Residence: L-Barn - Replace 

window & trim (child)

$31,000.00 

52565 2005213124 Rehabilitate Seatuck Exterior Office/Residence: L-Barn - Painting 

(child)

$30,000.00 

52565 2005213128 Rehabilitate Seatuck Exterior Office/Residence: L-Barn - Replace Roof 

(child)

$26,000.00 
Service Asset Maintenance Management System

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 E-5

Location* Work Order

# 

Description $ WO 

Total Cost

52565 2005213123 Rehabilitate Seatuck Exterior Office/Residence: L-Barn -Replace 

Shakes (child)

$32,000.00 

52565 2005213125 Rehabilitate Seatuck Exterior Office/Residence: L-Barn - Repair brick/

mortar (child)

$49,000.00 

52565 2005258541 Rehabilitate Refuge Office/Quarters - Contract (child) $236,000.00 

52565 2005258475 Replace Deer Fencing and Gate at Seatuck - Contract (child) $58,000.00 

52565 2005258467 Replace Regulatory and Boundary Signs Seatuck - Purchase Order 

(child)

$52,000.00 

52565 2005258501 Replace Entrance Gate - GSA Contract (child) $34,000.00 

52565 2005258523 Remove Bulkhead at Seatuck - Contract (child) $39,000.00 

52565 2005258456 Remove Fencing and Structures Seatuck - Contract (child) $26,000.00 

52566 2005255893 Replace Boundary Signs Morton NWR - Contract (child) $26,000.00 

52566 2005255899 Replace Regulatory Signs - Purchase Order (child) $26,000.00 

52566 2005213377 Replace Restroom at Morton - Demolition (child) $9,000.00 

52566 2005213375 Replace Restroom at Morton - GSA Contract (child) $320,000.00 

52566 2005255904 Replace Morton Septic System - Contract (child) $26,000.00 

52566 2005255892 Replace Fencing at Morton NWR - Contract (child) $26,000.00 

52568 2005258966 Construct Information Kiosk at Fishing Access Site - Purchase order 

(child)

$32,020.00 

52568 2006507070 Construct Information Kiosk at Fishing Access Site - Purchase order 

(child)

$32,400.00 

52568 95105039 R5 Target Rock Rehbailitate Refuge Entrance Road (.8 mi.) CN $87,000.00 

52568 2005258973 Replace Target Rock Facility - Refuge Office - Contract (child) $141,000.00 

52568 2005258978 Rehabilitate Target Rock Garage Cow Bar - Contract (child) $27,000.00 

52568 2005258968 Rehabilitate Target Rock Refuge Housing Facility - Contract (child) $109,000.00 

52568 2005258963 Replace Target Rock Bent Pole Automatic Gate - Contract (child) $26,000.00 

GRAND TOTAL $17,586,973.00

*52560=Complex 52561=Wertheim 52564=Conscience Point 52565=Seatuck 52566=Morton 52568=Target Rock

Appendix F

Staffing Chart

Canada geese, normally migratory, can become a nuisance as residents.

John Mosesso, Jr./NBII

Staffi ng Chart

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 F-1

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

(Wertheim, Oyster Bay, Elizabeth A. Morton, Amagansett, 

Conscience Point, Target Rock, Sayville, Seatuck)

Staffi ng Chart

Refuge Manager 

GS-0485-14 

Administrative Officer 

GS-0341-7/9 

Office Assistant (OA) 

GS-0303-4 

Refuge Manager 

(Deputy) 

GS-0485-13 

Student Trainee 

(Bio Science) 

GS-0499-7 

Engineering Equipment 

Operator 

WL-5716-9 

Maintenance Worker 

WG-4749-7 

Outdoor Rec. Planner 

GS-0023-11/12 

Park Ranger 

(Refuge/LE) 

GS-0025-9 

Wildlife Biologist 

GS-0486-11 

Wildlife Biologist 

GS-0486-9 

Appendix G

Conceptual Plans

Wigeons forage in freshwater marshes and other wetlands.

© Mark Wilson

Conceptual Plans

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 G-1

The plans for the visitor center/headquarters will closely follow those for a similar 

facility recently completed at the Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

Map G-1 below provides an aerial view of the proposed site described in chapter 

4. Please refer to map 4-2 in chapter 4 for details on other proposed facilities 

associated with the visitor center/headquarters. 

The figures that follow are standard plans from the Region 5 family of buildings for 

a medium-sized facility. Those plans give a general overview of what the proposed 

visitor center and headquarters will look like. Please note that the final design will 

vary.

Introduction

S

mith

Road

Aerial Map of the Proposed Visitor Center/Headquarters

Produced by Long Island NWR Complex, Shirley, New York

Base Map: USGS 2001 Digital Orthophotography Vegetation Data: USFWS 1994 NVCS mapping

Refuge boundary: USFWS, Region 5, Div. of Realty 2004

Datum and projection: NAD 1983, UTM Zone 18, Meters

Map Date: 4/2006

Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge

Suffolk County, New York

1:3,496

0 0.07 0.14

Miles

0 0.075 0.15 0.225

Kilometers

Refuge Boundary (2,572 Acres)

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Map G-1

Road

Proposed site (approximate, not to scale)
Appendix G

G-2 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Figure G.1. Medium visitor center/headquarters - Perspective

Figure G.2. Medium visitor center/headquarters - Elevations
Conceptual Plans

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 G-3

Figure G.3. Medium visitor center/headquarters-floor plans

Appendix H

Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form

Piping plovers are a Federal-listed threatened and state-listed endangered species.

© Jim Fenton

Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 H-1

INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FORM

Originating Person: Deborah Long

Telephone Number: 631/286-0485

Date: August 21, 2006

I. Region: 

Region 5 (Northeast)

II. Service Activity (Program):

National Wildlife Refuge System

III. Pertinent Species and Habitat:

A. Listed species potentially present within the action area:

Federal-Designated Endangered and Threatened Species: 

1) Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) [Threatened (T)]

2) Roseate tern (Sterna dougallii dougallii) [Endangered (E)]

3) Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) [Threatened (T)]

4) Atlantic Hawksbill (Eretmochelys inbricata) [Endangered (E)]

5) Atlantic Ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) [Endangered (E)]

6) Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) [Endangered (E)]

7) Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) [Threatened (T)]

8) Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) [Threatened (T)]

9) Sandplain gerardia (Agalinis acuta) [Endangered (E)]

10) American Eel (Anquilla rostrata) [Status Review]

11) Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) [Endangered (E)]

The Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex is in the process of preparing a 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) that is vital for the management of each refuge 

unit (a total of nine). The final CCP will provide strategic management direction over the 

next 15 years, by

	providing a clear statement of desired future conditions for habitat, wildlife, visitor 

services, and facilities;

	providing refuge neighbors, visitors, and partners with a clear understanding of the 

reasons for management actions;

	ensuring refuge management reflects the policies and goals of the System and legal 

mandates;

	ensuring the compatibility of current and future public use;

	providing long-term continuity and direction for refuge management; and
Appendix H

H-2 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

	providing direction for staffing, operations, maintenance, and developing budget requests.

The need to develop a CCP for the Complex is two-fold. First, the Refuge Improvement 

Act requires that all national wildlife refuges have a CCP in place by 2012 to help fulfill the 

mission of the System. Second, the Complex lacks a master plan that clearly establishes 

priorities and ensures consistent, integrated management among its nine units.

The refuges of the Complex provide significant, even critical amounts of habitat for 

the majority of wildlife species known to occur on Long Island. Nearly 500 vertebrate 

species and approximately 500 species of vascular plants have been documented at the 

Complex. Many invertebrate species also live on the Complex, including several species 

of commercial shellfish. The nine refuges are widely spread, and encompass most of the 

vegetation types on Long Island, which in-turn provide habitat for a variety of wildlife 

ranging from forest interior nesting Neotropical migrant birds to marine mammals. The 

coastal location of the refuges also makes them part of a major migration corridor for a 

variety of birds, including waterfowl, waterbirds, raptors, and songbirds. Appendix A lists 

birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, butterflies, and plants that can be found at the 

Complex.

State-listed endangered or threatened animal species at the Complex–not already 

federally-listed–include the golden eagle, black rail and king rail, black, common, and least 

tern; and short-eared owl, loggerhead shrike, pied-billed grebe, least bittern, northern 

harrier, upland sandpiper, sedge wren, eastern mud turtle, tiger salamander, northern 

cricket frog, Hessel’s hairstreak, and frosted elfin (USFWS 1995, NYSDEC 2003). See 

chapter 3, “Affected Environment” of the draft CCP/Environmental Assessment (EA) for 

more information.

There is no Federally-designated critical habitat within the action area.

B. Proposed species and/or proposed critical habitat within the action area

None

C. Candidate species within the action area:

 None

 

 American Eel Status Review

A Status review for the American eel (Anquilla rostrata) is currently being undertaken 

pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. The American eel may be found in a variety 

of aquatic habitats ranging from coastal to freshwater riverine, bays, and stream 

estuaries. Eight of the nine refuge units qualify as habitat for the American eel. They are: 

Amagansett, Conscience Point, Morton, Oyster Bay, Seatuck, Target Rock, and Wertheim 

refuges and Lido Beach Wildlife Management Area.

 

D. Include species/habitat occurrence on a map.
Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 H-3

IV. Geographic area or station name and action:

Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex – Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Units of 

the Complex in Nassau County include Lido Beach Wildlife Management Area and Oyster Bay 

National Wildlife Refuge. Units of the Complex in Suffolk County include Amagansett, Conscience 

Point, Morton, Seatuck, Target Rock, and Wertheim National Wildlife Refuges, and the Sayville 

unit of Wertheim refuge. See chapter 3, “Affected Environment” of the draft CCP/EA for maps.

V. Location (attach map): 

Maps are found in chapters 1 through 3 of the draft CCP/EA.

A. Ecoregion Number and Name: 

The North Atlantic Coastal Ecoregion

B. County and State:

Suffolk and Nassau Counties, New York

C. Section, township, and range (or latitude and longitude):

 Refer to the draft CCP/EA Introduction and Chapters 2-4.

D. Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town:

 Project area covers a juxtaposition of different habitats and ecosystems across an 

 estimated 80 miles of Long Island. 

E. Species/habitat occurrence:

1) Bald eagles principally use the refuges while migrating or wintering, and are 

associated with aquatic or wetland habitats and their adjacent terrestrial borders.

2) Roseate tern are associated with intertidal or strand habitats. They rest and feed 

along the beach strand areas of Morton, Amagansett, Oyster Bay, and Wertheim 

refuges. Morton refuge is a former breeding area for roseate terns.

3) Piping plover are associated with intertidal or strand habitats. Breeding habitats 

are located at Morton and Amagansett refuges from March through September. At 

Target Rock, piping plover forage along the refuge shoreline.

4) Atlantic hawksbill sea turtles depend on subtidal habitats which can be found at 

Wertheim, Oyster Bay, Amagansett, and Seatuck refuges. 

5) Atlantic ridley sea turtles depend on subtidal habitats which can be found at 

Wertheim, Oyster Bay, Amagansett, and Seatuck refuges.

6) Leatherback sea turtles depend on subtidal habitats which can be found at 

Wertheim, Oyster Bay, Amagansett, and Seatuck refuges.

7) Loggerhead sea turtles depend on subtidal habitats which can be found at 

Wertheim, Oyster Bay, Amagansett, and Seatuck refuges. 

8) Green sea turtles depend on subtidal habitats which can be found at Wertheim, 

Oyster Bay, Amagansett, and Seatuck refuges.

9) Sandplain gerardia is part of a fire-dependent grassland community located at the 

Sayville unit of Wertheim refuge and at Seatuck and Conscience Point refuges. 

10) American eel habitat can be found at Amagansett, Conscience Point, Morton, 
Appendix H

H-4 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Oyster Bay, Seatuck, Target Rock, and Wertheim refuges and at Lido Beach 

Wildlife Management Area.

11) Shortnose sturgeon can be found in the Hudson River. None have been found 

within any refuges in the Complex to date, but potential habitat occurs at 

Wertheim, Seatuck, Morton, and Oyster Bay refuges.

For more information and details, please refer to chapter 3, “Affected Environment” of the 

draft CCP/EA.

VI. Description of proposed action (attach additional pages as needed):

The proposed actions and alternatives selected by the Service are described in Chapter 2 of the 

draft CCP/EA.

VII. Determination of effects:

A. Explanation of effects of the action on species in item III:

 Refer to Chapter 4 of the draft CCP/EA for more information and details.

The proposed actions selected by the Service provide more potential habitat for fish 

and wildlife species native to the waters, wetlands, and forest associated with the North 

Atlantic Coastal Ecoregion. The Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex plans to 

preserve, manage, and restore some of the last significant natural areas for wildlife on 

Long Island, New York. The Complex’s proposed actions will incorporate methods such as 

restoration, habitat management, and/or monitoring of important wildlife habitats, ranging 

from coastal systems to native grasslands to mature forests. The proposed management 

actions presented in the CCP for each of the nine distinct units will provide support for 

threatened and endangered species in addition to hundreds of species of migratory birds 

and other wildlife within the Atlantic Flyway. Future actions will be coordinated with 

NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation) and NOAA 

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)/Fisheries.

From the draft CCP/EA, (Chapter 2, Actions Common to All Alternatives), Goal One 

states we will improve the biological diversity and integrity of upland cover types to 

sustain high-quality habitat for migratory passerine birds, proposed actions include 

managing land with prescribed burns. Prescribed fire is a management tool that has and 

may be used to maintain and enhance grasslands including endangered fire-dependent 

plant communities. This will have a beneficial effect on the Federally-listed sandplain 

gerardia.

Goal 3 (“to restore and increase the biological diversity and integrity of native grasslands 

to foster endangered plant recovery”) specifically addresses current and future access 

to areas supporting sandplain gerardia, and provides a commitment to continue to assist 

the The Nature Conservancy in managing a 101 acre site adjacent to the Sayville Unit of 

Wertheim Refuge, currently under the ownership of the Federal Aviation Administration. 

Additional recovery strategies for sandplain gerardia include incorporation of tree/shrub 

clearing, protecting established sites from unwanted disturbances (such as unauthorized 

ATV use), identification of potential reintroduction sites, coordination with the species 

recovery team, and monitoring the progress of newly established plots. This will also have 

beneficial effects on sandplain gerardia.
Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 H-5

Goal 4 (“to enhance the functionality of coastal strand habitat as they relate to beachnesting colonial water birds and shorebirds to meet optimal population levels”) describes 

management activities that are taking place, and will be continued. These include 

strategies to: closing sections of beach for the plover and tern nesting season; prohibiting 

public access; providing seasonal plover stewards and periodic patrols by refuge staff 

who erect predator exclosures; monitoring nesting success and assessing the relative 

abundance of predators. In other areas, as appropriate, the refuge installs symbolic 

fencing and will install artificial nest structures for roseate terns. Finally, volunteers 

and seasonal staff meet and provide listed species conservation education for the public. 

These actions will result in beneficial effects on piping plovers, roseate terns, and other 

associated State-listed species.

Goal 4, Objective 2 strategies include reducing the density of beach grass adjacent to 

breeding areas, creation of new intertidal foraging areas, assessing predator management 

needs and developing a plan; patrolling nesting areas during breeding and growing season, 

restricting access to breeding and growing areas, managing former dredged material 

disposal sites, and exploring active management/creation of suitable habitat. These 

management actions will provide beneficial effects to the piping plover and roseate tern.

Sea turtles occasionally forage and migrate in the offshore and nearshore subtidal 

areas within the Refuge Complex, and usually during the summer months. There is no 

information available that would suggest that any breeding by any listed sea turtle species 

takes place on refuge lands, or that there is suitable habitat for breeding present on refuge 

lands. No habitat management proposed for intertidal areas within the Complex would 

affect the subtidal areas where turtles may occur. In the event that additional information 

on listed sea turtles or their habitat becomes available, the determination of no effects may 

be reconsidered. 

Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge typically supports 1 to 3 immature bald eagles 

between late November and Mid-April. Most observations have occurred along the main 

stem of the Carmans River and the Big Fish Creek Impoundment. As stated in the draft 

CCP/EA on page 4-21, bald eagles are commonly observed perching in trees adjacent to 

the location chosen for the proposed Headquarters/Visitor Center. If they continue to 

roost there, when the new facilities are constructed, they may in the future occasionally be 

disturbed by human activities. However we believe that such disturbances would result in 

no more than insignificant or discountable direct, indirect or cumulative adverse effects. 

Insignificant effects relate to the size of the impact and should never reach the scale where 

take occurs, and discountable effects are those extremely unlikely to occur. In the event 

that bald eagles establish a nest in the vicinity of the proposed Visitor Center, or if they 

significantly change their use of the available habitat, or if construction activities must take 

place in a manner and at a time of year such that they may significantly disturb the eagles, 

this determination may be reconsidered. 

Information on the occurrence of listed species and their habitats is frequently updated; 

thus, Refuge Complex staff will continue to consult with the Service’s Ecological Services 

(ES) Branch and the New York State Natural Heritage Program prior to the initiation 

of any action that may affect State- or Federally-listed species or their habitat. The ES 

offices in New York recommend that the list of species potentially present in each County 

should be checked every 90 days should management/construction activities be planned 

that might impact species.
Appendix H

H-6 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects:

As explained above, we believe that implementation of the proposed alternative CCP will 

result in either completely beneficial effects to the listed species described above; or that 

any direct, indirect, or cumulative adverse effects that may result will be no more than 

insignificant or discountable. In order to ensure that habitat restoration activities and 

other management actions in listed species habitat will have no adverse effects, these 

actions will be performed outside listed species growing/breeding seasonal windows. 

VIII. Effect determination and response requested: [* = optional]

A. List species/designated critical habitat:

Determination Response requested

No effect/No adverse modification

(Species: Atlantic Hawksbill Sea Turtle, American Eel, Loggerhead Sea Turtle, Atlantic 

Ridley Sea Turtle, Green Sea Turtle, Leatherback Sea Turtle, Shortnose Sturgeon)

 * Concurrence

May affect, but is not likely to adversely affect

species/adversely modify critical habitat

Species: 

1) Bald eagle (any adverse effects no more than discountable or insignificant) 

2) Roseate tern (any effects completely beneficial) 

3) Piping Plover (any effects completely beneficial)

4) Sandplain gerardia (any effects completely beneficial) 

 X Concurrence

May affect, and is likely to adversely affect 

species/adversely modify critical habitat

(Species: ) Formal Consultation

 s

 Signature Date

Refuge Manager

Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 H-7

IX. Reviewing ESO Evaluation:

A. Concurrence X Nonconcurrence_______

B. Formal consultation required ________

C. Conference required _________

D. Informal conference required _________

E. Remarks (attach additional pages as needed):

 s

 Signature Date 

 

Appendix I

Consultation and Coordination with Others

Public Involvement Summary

List of Preparers





Public meetings and open houses provide a forum for discussing refuge issues with our 

partners and the general public.

M. Lin/USFWS

In chapter 2, figure 2-1, we presented the steps in the comprehensive conservation 

planning process and how it integrates NEPA requirements, including public 

involvement. This appendix summarizes our coordination and consultation with 

others in developing this comprehensive conservation plan, including meetings 

with the public and our conservation partners, mailings, and announcements in the 

“Federal Register.” 

Public scoping. In September and October 2000, more than 200 people attended 

our series of afternoon open houses and evening public meetings in both 

Nassau and Suffolk counties. We announced their locations, dates and times in 

local newspapers, on various websites and in special mailings. Local residents, 

landowners, and various conservation organizations and agencies provided valuable 

input on refuge management issues of concern.

September 26, 2000 Mastic Beach, New York

September 27, 2000 Brookhaven, New York

September 28, 2000 East Hampton, New York

October 18, 2000 West Sayville, New York

October 19, 2000 Oyster Bay, New York

Newsletters. We mailed a planning newsletter in September 2000 to our mailing 

list of about 1,500 people, and distributed it at the refuge headquarters at 

Wertheim and at all of those open houses and public meetings. That newsletter 

contained a workbook that included questions to help collect ideas, concerns 

and suggestions from the public on important issues associated with managing 

the Long Island refuges. We asked for input on those issues and possible action 

options, the things people valued most about the refuges, their vision for the 

future of the refuges, and whether our recreational facilities meet public needs. We 

received more than 100 workbooks in response. 

We distributed a second newsletter in January 2001 that summarized the 

highlights of those responses and what we had gleaned from our public meetings. A 

third newsletter in February 2003 included the latest news about the Complex and 

our planning process. We also asked the public to provide input on draft versions of 

our vision and goals for the refuges. In January 2006 we distributed to over 3,000 

people a fourth newsletter that included an update of the process, in particular 

noting the large turnover in refuge staff personnel, as well as including a brief 

description of three draft alternatives and how the draft CCP/EA will be made 

available for review and comment during the spring. In June 2006 we sent out a 

postcard-sized mailer announcing the availability of the draft CCP/EA and the 

dates and locations of our public meetings and open houses.

Related planning. During the planning process, part of our continuing refuge 

management included addressing important issues as they arose. Refuge staff 

completed two environmental assessments independently of that process: One 

addressed the issue of deer hunting at the Wertheim refuge; the other addressed 

development of a headquarters and visitor center at Wertheim.

Public 

Involvement 

Summary

Public Involvement Summary

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 I-1
Each EA included extensive public involvement, and incorporated our 

comprehensive conservation planning: how the CCP would integrate the proposed 

action; and, how implementing it would impact the CCP.

In February 2001, Mamie Parker, then regional director, approved an EA for a 

visitor center/staff office on a 6-acre site adjacent to Wertheim. That EA analyzes 

four alternatives. Eighty-four percent of the written responses supported that 

center. The responses that did not support it primarily were based on perceived 

affects on property values, safety issues, and apparent misunderstandings about 

trail access. We held a public hearing about the proposed facility in December 2000.

In 2004, we completed an EA evaluating four management alternatives to address 

overpopulation of white-tailed deer at Wertheim, including a controlled public hunt, 

and held public meetings in June 2004. Public hearings attracted about 100 refuge 

neighbors, conservation and sportsmen’s groups and avid hunters. Less than a 

handful of people opposed a controlled public hunt. The majority favored it.

As part of the CCP process we initiated intra-service consultation with our 

Ecological Service’s program to evaluate potential impacts of our proposed 

management to threatened or endangered species. An intra-service section 7 

biological evaluation form was completed for this final CCP and is included as an 

appendix.

“Federal Register” Notices. We published our original Notice of Intent 

(NOI) in the “Federal Register” on May 30, 2000, stating we would develop an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Complex in conjunction with its 

CCP. Then, as we evaluated two of the primary issues in their own environmental 

assessments independently of the CCP process (see above), we determined that 

an EA rather than an EIS would be more appropriate to accompany this CCP. 

On March 28, 2005, our second NOI in the “Federal Register” advised the public 

we were withdrawing the previous notice and, instead of completing a CCP/EIS, 

would complete a CCP/EA. In preparing this draft CCP/EA, we considered all 

comments we had received after publishing the first NOI.

Workshops. The rationale of our workshops was to generate a range of possible 

solutions that would address issues of resource management and public use 

at the Complex. In February 2001 and January 2002, we held workshops with 

various biological and public use experts from federal, state, local and non-profit 

organizations. Those workshops allowed us to work closely with our partners in 

discussing the vision, goals, objectives, strategies, and consequences at the heart of 

this plan. 

We used the input obtained from our public meetings, newsletters and workshops 

to prepare a draft CCP/EA, which was released on June 19, 2006 for 30 days of 

public review and comment. During that period, we held three public meetings. 

June 26, 2006 Shirley, New York

June 27, 2006 Oyster Bay, New York

June 28, 2006 Sag Harbor, New York

Appendix I

I-2 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
We analyzed all of the comments on the draft CCP/EA we received during its 30 

day public review and applied them when we revised it into our final CCP. Appendix 

J summarizes those public comments and our responses to them.

Each year, we will evaluate our accomplishments on the refuge in accordance 

with the preferred action described in this final CCP. We may intensify refuge 

monitoring without additional NEPA compliance. However, any results of our 

future monitoring that predict a new, significant impact would require our analysis 

and public involvement in an additional environmental assessment.

List of 

Preparers

Core Planning Team

Thomas Bonetti

Title Senior Refuge Planner and Planning Team Leader

Affiliation USFWS Region 5 Regional Office

Experience 1.5 years California Department of Parks and Recreation; 6 years 

with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 7 years with USFWS, Region 

5, Division of Conservation Planning and Policy

Maria Brown

Title Administrative Officer

Affiliation Long Island NWR Complex

Experience 1 year with USFWS

Kelly A. Chadbourne (formerly Kelly A. Warren) 

Title Contract Biologist 

Affiliation Former Senior Wildlife Biologist Long Island NWR Complex

Experience 4 years with USFWS

Alex Chmielewski

Title Supervisory Wildlife Biologist

Affiliation Long Island NWR Complex

Experience 6 years USFWS

Beth Goldstein

Title Refuge Planner

Affiliation USFWS Region 5 Regional Office

Experience 6 years with USFWS

Florence James

Title Wildlife Biologist

Affiliation Long Island NWR Complex

Experience 14 years with USFWS: 8 at Long Island NWR Complex and 6 at 

Back Bay NWR; 6 years with Department of the Interior, Office of 

the Secretary

List of Preparers

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 I-3
Mao Teng Lin

Title Assistant Planner

Affiliation USFWS Region 5 Regional Office (on contract through the 

Environmental Careers Organization)

Experience 1 year with USFWS

Deborah Lofredo

Title Office Assistant

Affiliation Long Island NWR Complex

Experience 8 years with USFWS

Thomas Loring

Title Refuge Officer

Affiliation Long Island NWR Complex

Experience 2 years with USFWS; 5 years with National Park Service

Debbie Long

Title Refuge Manager

Affiliation Long Island NWR Complex

Experience 14 years with USFWS; 5 years with the Thorne Ecological Institute 

in Boulder, CO. 5 years with URS Corporation (Environmental 

Planning), Denver, CO.

Mark Maghini

Title Deputy Refuge Manager

Affiliation Rhode Island NWR Complex

Experience 14 years USFWS; 1 year U.S. Forest Service; 1 year each as wildlife 

biologist for Vermont and Connecticut Wildlife Departments

Jack Martinez

Title Maintenance Worker

Affiliation Long Island NWR Complex

Experience 6 years with USFWS

Patricia Martinkovic

Title Refuge Manager

Affiliation Minnesota Valley NWR 

Experience 28 years with USFWS

Brad Milley

Title Cartographic Technician

Affiliation USFWS Region 5 Regional Office

Experience 1 year with USFWS

Alison Penn

Title Outdoor Recreation Planner

Affiliation Long Island NWR Complex

Experience 6 years with USFWS

Appendix I

I-4 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Tom Penn

Title Wildlife Biologist

Affiliation Long Island NWR Complex

Experience 10 years with USFWS

Karrie Schwaab

Title Refuge Operations Specialist

Affiliation Long Island NWR Complex

Experience 4 years with USFWS

Bill Starke

Title Engineering Equipment Operator Leader

Affiliation Long Island NWR Complex

Experience 6 years with USFWS

Andrea Stewart

Title Visitor Services Manager

Affiliation Montezuma NWR

Experience 5 years with USFWS: 4 at Long Island NWR Complex; 1 at 

Montezuma NWR

Bill Stewart

Title Deputy Refuge Manager

Affiliation Montezuma NWR

Experience 8 years USFWS

Michelle Williams

Title Deputy Refuge Manager

Affiliation Long Island NWR Complex

Experience 1 year at Long Island NWR Complex, 6 years USFWS, 11 years 

with the Bureau of Land Management

Assistance from Other Service Personnel

Steve Funderburk

Chief of Conservation Planning and Policy

National Wildlife Refuge System

Lamar Gore

Assistant Refuge Supervisor

National Wildlife Refuge System

Anne Hecht

Endangered Species Specialist

Steven Mars

Project Leader

Long Island Field Office

Laura Mitchell

Regional Biologist

Division of Natural Resources

Dan Stotts

Deputy Refuge Manager

Eastern Massachusetts NWR Complex

Jan Taylor

Regional Biologist

Division of Natural Resources

List of Preparers

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 I-5
Appendix I

I-6 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Assistance from federal, state, local and other partners

Michael Bilecki 

National Park Service

Constantine Dillon

National Park Service

Greg Capobianco 

Coastal Resources Specialist

NYS DOS

Dan Rosenblatt

Biologist 

NYSDEC

Chuck Hamilton 

Regional Supervisor

NYSDEC

Lisa Holst

Biologist

NYSDEC

Mark Lowery

Reg. Citizen Participation Specialist

NYSDEC

Bob Conklin 

Captain 

NYS Forest Rangers

Resi Cooper

Legislative Assistant

U.S. Senator Clinton

Christopher Hahn

Legislative Assistant

U.S. Senator Schumer

Samantha Maltzman

Legislative Assistant

U.S. Congressman Israel

Kevin Molloy

Legislative Assistant 

U.S. Congressman Grucci

Peter Scully

Suffolk County Commissioner

Vincent Cannuscio

Southampton Town Supervisor

John J. Lavalle

Brookhaven Town Supervisor

Pete McGowan

Islip Town Supervisor

Jay Schneiderman

East Hampton Town Supervisor

John Turner

Director of Conservation Programs

The Nature Conservancy

Ray Corwin

Executive Director

Central Pine Barrens

Warren Ferdinandson 

Suffolk Alliance of Sportsmen

John Fritz 

NY Sportfishing Federation

Claire Goad

President

Friends of Wertheim

Craig Kessler

Biological Supervisor

Ducks Unlimited

Michael Matthews

Wildlife Society

Dominick Ninivaggi

Superintendent

Suffolk County Vector Control

Jeremy Feinberg

Biologist

Brookhaven National Laboratory

Carl Safina

Director

National Audubon Society
Appendix J

Summary and Response to Public Comments

Introduction

Hunting and Fishing

Managing Threatened and Endangered Species

Furbearer Management/Trapping

Invasive/Nuisance Species Control

Outreach

Oyster Bay

Infrastructure

Miscellaneous Comments



















Kayakers enjoying the Carmans River at Wertheim refuge.

M. Lin/USFWS

We reviewed and considered all letters received during the public comment period 

for the Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (CCP/EA). The Draft CCP/EA 

was originally released for 30 days of public review from June 19 through July 

19, 2006. Based on the analysis in the Draft CCP/EA, and our review of public 

comments, the Service has selected a Preferred Alternative. The Preferred 

Alternative basically includes all of Alternative B, the Service-Proposed Action 

in the Draft CCP/EA, with a few modifications described in the discussion below. 

We will also issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The FONSI 

establishes that our decision will not significantly affect the quality of the human 

environment and does not require preparation of an Environmental Impact 

Statement. 

We received numerous responses by way of oral testimony at public hearings or 

through submission of written or electronic documents. Comments were received 

from local and State agencies, conservation and recreation organizations, and local 

residents.

Twenty-five people attended our public meeting on June 26, 2006, from 7:00 p.m. to 

9:00 p.m., at Dowling College (Brookhaven Campus), Shirley, New York. Fourteen 

people attended the public meeting on June 27, 2006, at Doubleday Babcock Senior 

Center, Oyster Bay, NY, and five people at Morton NWR, Sag Harbor, NY, on June 

28, 2006.

The following discussion summarizes the substantive issues they raised and our 

responses to them. Many of our responses refer to the full text copy of our draft 

CCP/EA, and indicate how the final CCP reflects our proposed changes. If you 

would like to view or download copies of the draft CCP/EA or final CCP, they are 

available online at http://library.fws.gov/ccps.htm or http://longislandrefuges.fws.

gov. You may also request them on CD-ROM or in print by contacting the refuge 

headquarters. 

Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

P.O. Box 21, 360 Smith Road

Shirley, New York 11967

Refuge Phone: (631) 286-0485

Refuge Email: longislandrefuges@fws.gov

Introduction

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 J-1

Introduction
Appendix J

J-2 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Comment: There was a wide range of opinions regarding hunting, i.e. those 

opposed to all forms of hunting and those receptive to some hunting. 

We follow with the range of comments:

- Expand hunting opportunity (3)

- In favor of deer hunting (3)

- In favor of goose hunting (2)

- Expand deer hunting opportunity (1)

- Use hunting for management purposes only (1)

- No hunting (3)

- No hunting on Wertheim (2)

- No deer hunting 

- No deer hunting on Wertheim (2)

- No youth archery hunting (1)

- Hunting is inhumane (1)

- Expand fishing opportunity (2)

Response: The Service recognizes that in many cases, hunting is an important 

tool for wildlife management. Hunting gives resource managers a valuable tool 

to control populations of some species that might otherwise exceed the carrying 

capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other wildlife species, 

and in some instances, that of human health and safety. Furthermore, the 

National Wildlife Refuge System has a long history of support by recreational 

hunters, including the creation of over 300 units through the use of Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act of 1919 (16 U.S.C. 715a-715r) using “Duck Stamp” funds. 

This traditional support has been recognized in subsequent statutory authority 

for the System, including most recently the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. This law, which also provides the System its mission, 

clearly states that six wildlife-dependent recreational uses, including both hunting 

and fishing as well as wildlife observation and photography and environmental 

education and interpretation, when compatible, are the priority general public uses 

of the System. Furthermore, these uses are to receive “enhanced consideration 

over other general public uses in planning and management within the System ....” 

The Improvement Act also directs the Service to provide “increased opportunities 

for families to experience compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, particularly 

opportunities for parents and their children to safely engage in traditional outdoor 

activities, such as fishing and hunting ....” From this statutory language, Congress’ 

intent is clear that the Service provide opportunities for hunting and fishing where 

it is compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established. The refuge 

has weighed the impacts to: 1) fish and wildlife resources and their habitats, 2) 

other priority public use, and 3) adjacent land use such as residences, commercial 

property, and open space. We have determined that any negative impacts 

associated with the proposed hunting would not be significant. 

Hunting and 

Fishing
The Improvement Act did not establish a hierarchy among the six uses, but 

enables refuge managers to facilitate them when they are compatible and 

appropriate. Therefore, hunting and fishing may be given equal consideration 

with non-consumptive recreational uses. Appendix C includes our compatibility 

determinations for the resident Canada goose and white-tailed deer hunts.

 Provisions governing hunting and fishing on national wildlife refuges are in the 

Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 32). We regulate hunting and fishing on 

refuges to: ensure compatibility with refuge purpose(s); properly manage the fish 

and wildlife resource(s); protect other refuge values; ensure refuge visitor safety; 

and provide opportunities for quality recreational and educational experiences. 

On many refuges where we decide to allow hunting and fishing, our general 

policy of adopting regulations identical to State hunting and fishing regulations is 

adequate in meeting these objectives. On other refuges, we must supplement State 

regulations with more-restrictive Federal regulations to ensure that we meet our 

management responsibilities and to provide an enhanced degree of safety for both 

the general public and the hunters. We issue refuge-specific hunting and sport 

fishing regulations when we open wildlife refuges to migratory game bird hunting, 

upland game hunting, big game hunting, or sport fishing.

We develop specific management plans for each refuge prior to opening it to 

hunting or fishing. In many cases, we develop refuge-specific regulations to ensure 

the compatibility of the programs with the purposes for which we established 

the refuge and the mission of the System, as well as safety and administrative 

concerns. These regulations list the wildlife species that you may hunt or those 

species subject to sport fishing, seasons, bag limits, methods of hunting or 

fishing, descriptions of areas open to hunting or fishing, and other provisions as 

appropriate. During annual reviews, we consider public/hunter safety, conflicts with 

wildlife/habitat management goals, cost, staffing, enforcement, conflicts with other 

priority recreational uses; and additional/changes to refuge specific regulations. 

Comment: Several reviewers suggested we consider an alternative to a public deer 

hunt for population management, i.e. shooting conducted directly by refuge staff 

instead of the hunting public. 

Response: Should the deer population continue to increase, the refuge may 

consider additional means of population control beyond a public hunt. Control by 

refuge staff or contracted sharpshooters would increase the potential of selectively 

harvesting animals to correct the age/sex ratios of the herd. The opportunity to 

reduce reproductive potential by increasing the percent of females harvested 

would likely be greater than under a regulated public hunt.

From a public safety standpoint, this alternative carries a greater potential 

reduction in safety hazards to individual members of the hunting public, as only 

refuge staff/contractors will be involved in deer control activities. However, this 

alternative carries the likelihood of objections from the public to take by refuge 

staff. It would result in a loss in opportunity for a priority public recreational use 

as defined in the Refuge Improvement Act. Local deer hunters are likely to be 

concerned because this alternative precludes potential deer hunting opportunities. 

This alternative is contrary to Service policy to conduct a reduction of surplus 

Hunting and Fishing

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 J-3
Appendix J

J-4 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

game animals using a recreational hunt, when it can be used to effectively manage 

wildlife populations. 

Comment: Two reviewers suggested that the use of GonaConTM (GnRH), a 

contraceptive agent for deer, should be considered instead of hunting as the means 

of deer population control.

Response: Population management, alone, is not the only justification for opening 

the refuge to limited deer hunting. As stated above, hunting is one of the priority 

public uses established by the Improvement Act. 

In addition, the following information was extracted from a US Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), Wildlife Services website. USDA is the lead Federal agency 

involved in immunocontraceptive development for wildlife population control. 

USDA indicates the efficacy of GnRH depends upon the individual animal and its 

response to the vaccine. GnRH has successfully kept female deer infertile for 2 to 

4 years in pen studies. Because it is a single-shot, multiyear vaccine, GnRH may 

be a practical management tool. Deer need to be injected only once to become 

infertile for up to 4 years. The vaccine can be used in urban and residential areas, 

where other management methods, such as hunting, are not an option. However, 

currently GnRH must be injected into the muscle or tissue of each animal. 

Eventually, WS scientists hope to produce an oral GnRH vaccine bait that will be 

attractive to deer but not other animals. The vaccine itself only costs $2–$10 per 

dose. The main cost of using GnRH is associated with the time and money required 

to capture and vaccinate the deer. The estimated cost of vaccinating a deer ranges 

from $500 to $1,000 if capture and marking are required. If marking individual 

deer is not required and groups of animals can be vaccinated by remote delivery 

of the injections, costs would be much lower per treatment. However, the USDA 

states that contraception alone cannot reduce overabundant deer populations 

to healthy levels. GnRH is a tool to be used in conjunction with other wildlife 

management methods.

Comment: Left on their own, deer populations would realize a natural cycle 

of high-low populations, as the food resources within the habitat vary with the 

population.

Response: The ability for a deer population to self-regulate is based upon the 

deer’s biological carrying capacity (BCC) for a given area. The BCC of a wildlife 

population is defined as the maximum number of animals that an area can support 

without degradation to the animal’s health and the environment over an extended 

period of time. When this number is exceeded, the health of the population begins 

to suffer, reproduction declines, parasitism and disease increase, and habitat 

quality and diversity decrease due to overbrowsing of plant species preferred as 

food by deer (Kroll et. al. 1986). Overbrowsing negatively impacts the habitat and 

landscape, and overall animal health declines, due to less nutritious food items 

being available. Damage and conflicts currently occur, therefore it is reasonable 

to conclude that if deer were allowed to self-regulate to the point that they would 

reach their BCC, deer damage and conflicts would not cease but likely occur at 

higher rates.
The cultural carrying capacity (CCC) is defined as the maximum density of a given 

species that can coexist compatibly with the local human population (Decker and 

Purdy 1988). This term is useful because it defines when conflicts with deer have 

exceeded an acceptable level, and provides managers with a target for establishing 

management objectives. Certain factors may influence the CCC, such as landscape 

or vegetation impacts, threats to public safety, the potential for illegal killing 

of deer, and personal attitudes and values. The threshold of wildlife damage 

acceptance is the primary limiting factor in determining the CCC. Generally, the 

CCC is reached before BCC.

Comment: Hunting accelerates the proliferation of animals, including deer. 

Also, hunting has not proven effective in controlling deer populations because 

populations depend on many factors.

Response: White-tailed deer do not exhibit self-regulatory mechanisms whereby 

compensatory reproduction (increased production of fawns) occurs following 

population reductions (accomplished through shooting, hunting, or other 

mechanisms) when free-ranging population is well below BBC (Keith 1974, Wagner 

et. al. 1995). Alternately, compensatory reproduction may have occurred elsewhere 

in the past where fenced/closed deer populations occurred at or above BCC, and 

where population control measures were taken. Simply put, a population of healthy 

animals generally has a higher birth rate than a population of unhealthy animals. 

Reducing an unhealthy herd to an optimal number that is in ecological balance with 

the available habitat will likely result in a higher birth rate amongst the individuals 

that remain. In the absence of historical/natural controls over the deer population, 

e.g. large predators, humans will have to remove a sufficient number of animals 

annually to maintain population health and stability.

Deer hunting is regulated statewide and is a valuable management tool to assist in 

maintaining a healthy productive heard. Depending upon the local circumstances, 

hunting may be used to reduce damage and conflicts at a local level. This type 

of management approach has been shown to reduce damage and conflicts on 

a localized basis (Kirkpatrick et. al. 2002). The success or failure of hunting in 

managing deer populations can be quite variable dependent upon the location 

that it is used, the hunting methods available, the skills of the hunter, and other 

deer management strategies being used in the area. While sport hunting is not 

appropriate for all situations, it is the primary management strategy used by 

land management agencies when determined practical and effective for a given 

situation.

Comment: Deer and wildlife impact on an environment is different than 

irreversible damage and destruction. Trees that have browse lines are not subject 

to being destroyed.

Response: The statement is generally correct when considering the impact of deer 

browse on individual mature trees. However, deer can have a profound impact 

on vegetation, altering species composition to the point that entire forests either 

fail to regenerate, or regenerate with trees and understory species that are not 

beneficial to deer or other species of wildlife, or for lumber (Waller and Alverson 

1997). Deer browsing damages and destroys landscaping and ornamental trees, 

shrubs, and flowers. As rural areas are developed, deer habitat may actually be 

Hunting and Fishing

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 J-5
Appendix J

J-6 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

enhanced because fertilized lawns, gardens, and landscape plants serve as high 

quality sources of food (Swihart et. al. 1995). Furthermore, deer are prolific, and 

adaptable, characteristics that allow them to exploit and prosper in most suitable 

habitat near urban areas, including residential areas (Jones and Witham 1990). The 

succulent nature of many ornament landscape plants, coupled with high nutrient 

contents from fertilizers, offers an attractive food source for deer.

Deer overabundance can effect native vegetation and natural ecosystems in 

addition to ornamental landscape plantings. White-tailed deer selectively forage on 

vegetation (Strole and Anderson 1992), and thus can have substantial impacts on 

certain herbaceous and woody species and on overall plant community structure 

(Waller and Alverson 1997). These changes can lead to adverse impacts on other 

wildlife species, which depend on these plants for food and shelter. Numerous 

studies have shown that over browsing by deer can decrease tree reproduction, 

understory vegetation, vertical structure, density, and plant diversity (Warren 

1991). By one count, 98 species of threatened and endangered plants, many of 

them orchids and lilies, are disturbed by deer browsing (Ness 2003). In the Great 

Smokey Mountains National Park, Tennessee, an area heavily populated by deer 

had a reduction in the number of plant species, a loss of hardwood species and a 

predominance of conifer species compared to an ecologically similar control area 

with fewer deer (Bratton 1979). In a single park in Columbus, Ohio, a deer herd 

eradicated more than 150 plant species (Ness 2003).

The alteration and degradation of habitat from over-browsing by deer may 

displace other wildlife communities (e.g., neotropical migrant songbirds and small 

mammals) that depend upon the understory vegetative habitat destroyed by deer 

browsing (VDGIF 1999). Similarly, De Calesta (1997) reported that deer browsing 

affected vegetation that songbirds need for foraging surfaces, escape cover, and 

nesting. Species richness and abundance of intermediate canopy nesting songbirds 

was reduced in areas with higher deer densities (DeCalesta 1997). Intermediate 

canopy nesters declined 37% in abundance and 27% in species diversity at higher 

deer densities. Five species of birds were found to disappear at densities of 

38.1 deer per square mile and another two disappeared at 63.7 deer per square 

mile. Casey and Hein (1983) found that 3 species of birds were lost in a research 

preserve stocked with high densities of ungulates and that the densities of several 

other species were lower than in an adjacent area with lower deer density. Waller 

and Alverson (1997) hypothesize that by competing with squirrels and other fruiteating animals for oak mast, deer may further affect many species of animals and 

insects.

Comment: “I have contracted lyme disease in 2001, 2003, 2004 and now in 2006. 

The deer population is out of control with its habitat and is spreading the lyme 

disease. I strongly recommend that the herd be controlled by a hunt ...”

Response: A popular belief is that a high deer population density correlates 

directly with high deer tick densities, and consequently high incidence of lyme 

disease transmission to the human population. 

 Our limited search of the literature reveals that white-tailed deer typically serve 

as the host of the adult stage of the deer tick. The presence of deer is therefore 

required for the tick to complete its lifecycle. Adult ticks overwinter in the leaf 
litter after dropping off the deer (Fish 1993). Therefore, distribution of ticks across 

the landscape is largely determined by the distribution of deer in the fall (Ostfeld 

et. al. 1996). However, it has been determined that minimal deer population 

densities are necessary to maintain a relatively high population of ticks. We 

therefore would not expect to reduce the number of ticks appreciably by reducing 

the number of deer.

Though adult ticks are quite capable of transmitting the disease to humans, deer 

are not considered the reservoir for the lyme bacterium. It is believed that most 

lyme disease in humans is contracted from the bite of infected nymph stage of 

the tick (Ostfeld et. al. 1996). The larval and nymph stages of the tick are not host 

specific and will feed upon a wide range of vertebrate species. The white-footed 

mouse is the primary reservoir/carrier of the bacterium. The tick picks up the 

bacterium from the reservoir species and may transmit the bacterium to the next 

animal that it bites.

Most potential larval/nymph hosts, i.e. mammals, birds and reptiles, are unlikely to 

become infected with lyme (Lane et al. 1991; Anderson & Magnarelli 1993; Mather 

1993; Ostfeld & Keesing 2000a), thus many ticks never become infected with Lyme 

because some hosts exhibit low reservoir competence (Ostfeld and Keesing 2000a). 

The white-footed mouse has the highest reservoir competence (LoGiudice et. al. 

2002); defined as the ability of the host to become infected, maintain the infection, 

and transmit the infection to the vector/tick. Studies have found that high densities 

of mice correlate well with high incidence of infected ticks. These studies also show 

an increased diversity of vertebrate host species in the environment reduces the 

likelihood that a tick will feed on an individual with a high reservoir competence. 

This “dilution effect” reduces the density of infected ticks, hence reduced potential 

for tick-human transmission of lyme (Ostfeld and Keesing 2000a; Ostfeld and 

Keesing 2000b; LoGiudice et. al. 2002).

White-footed mice are found in the highest densities in relatively small, fragmented 

woodlands. Small woodlands are typified by reduced diversity of plant and animal 

species generally, as well as those species that would compete with, or prey directly 

on, mice (Nupp and Swihart 1998). Larger woodlands (>2 ha) have been found to 

have reduced incidence of lyme infected ticks (Nupp and Swihart 1998; Krohne and 

Hoch 1999; Allan et. al. 2003).

In most suburban environments, humans have fragmented the landscape into 

parcels where ticks and white-footed mice may thrive. Deer may survive very well 

within this environment, and where their populations have increased, they have 

altered the ecological balance on the landscape. Through herbivory and spread of 

invasive plants, deer have contributed to alteration/loss of biodiversity. Diverse 

assemblages of plants support a wider variety of animal species. Studies show 

that as small vertebrate diversity increases, the incidence of lyme carrying ticks 

decreases (Allan et. al.; Buskirk and Ostfeld 1995; LoGiudice et. al. 2002). Refuge 

objectives outline reduction in the density of the deer herd to restore biological, 

including vertebrate, diversity. It is possible that reducing the deer herd may 

increase vertebrate species diversity, potentially reducing the incidence of lyme 

transmission to humans.

Hunting and Fishing

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 J-7
Appendix J

J-8 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Comment: Some reviewers wished to expand the refuge hunt program to include 

additional species and refuges (e.g., Oyster Bay, Seatuck, and Morton), while 

others voiced opposition.

	 Open turkey hunting (if/when State opens season) (1)

	 No duck hunting (3)

	 Expand waterfowl hunting opportunity (1)

Response: Opening the refuge at this time to hunting for additional species, 

beyond those discussed in this CCP (i.e. white-tailed deer and resident Canada 

goose at Wertheim), is beyond the scope of this document. 

Section 2-54 states, “Within 5 years, work with partners to evaluate the feasibility 

of a limited duck hunt at Wertheim.” This statement indicates future consideration 

and evaluation of a duck hunt, only. A formal proposal to open the refuge to hunting 

for ducks or turkey in the future will require initiation of a new NEPA review and 

Compatibility Determination. If proposed, there will be additional opportunity for 

public review and comment.

Comment: Two reviewers indicated that hunting should be used for management 

purposes only. Justifying opening a waterfowl hunt strictly on the basis of the 

refuge’s desire to conform to the mandate for enhancing a priority wildlifedependent recreational activity would be considered a mistake at Wertheim. The 

opinion of the reviewer was that most neighbors do not object to a resident goose 

and deer hunt but allowing a general waterfowl hunt will destroy the neighborly 

friendship that has been fostered locally by the refuge staff and Friends of 

Wertheim.

Response: Population management, alone, is not the only justification for opening 

the refuge to a public hunt. As stated above, hunting is one of the priority public 

uses established by the Improvement Act. Additionally, hunting has been a 

traditional form of recreation along the Carmans River corridor for generations. 

Prior to acquisition by the Service, the Wertheim family hunted waterfowl and 

deer along the lower reaches of the Carmans River. Waterfowl hunting continues 

today north of the Wertheim refuge in Southaven County Park and south of the 

refuge in the Great South Bay. Under Service policy, hunting is an acceptable 

and traditional form of recreation, particularly in areas where those lands have 

historically supported hunting. Hunting opportunities may be modified on refuge 

lands for various reasons, including wildlife population considerations, the presence 

of Federally- or State-listed species, habitat maintenance, safety considerations, 

maintenance of a high-quality hunting experience, or in rare instances, protection 

of a research population.

Comment: Several reviewers were worried about safety issues arising from 

hunting in the relatively congested landscape on Long Island, and hunting skills of 

inexperienced youth hunters.

Response: Safety is our paramount consideration in developing this hunting 

program. Hunters must abide by all state and federal safety regulations related 

to hunting near roads and dwellings. New York State hunting regulations make it 
illegal to discharge a hunting weapon so that its load, shot or arrow, passes over 

any part of a public highway (any road maintained by state, county, or town) or 

within 500 feet of any dwelling, farm building, or structure in occupation or use. 

All new hunters (regardless of age) must pass a New York State Hunter Education 

course, and an additional Bow Hunter Education course is needed to hunt big 

game with a bow. A Junior Archery license is for 14-15 year olds to hunt big game, 

such as deer, and only with bow and arrow. While hunting, all junior bow hunters 

are required by law to be accompanied by a parent, or adult over 18 with written 

permission of parent/legal guardian (who also must have current hunting privileges 

and at least one year’s experience). Hunters must be at least 16 years old to hunt 

big game with a gun. Hunting by persons under the age of 16 is highly regulated 

in New York State. A more descriptive term for the junior hunting and junior bow 

hunting licenses would be learner’s permits, because hunters under the age of 16 

are permitted to hunt only under adult supervision. This legal requirement for 

licensed adults to take responsibility for the safety of minors seems to be the key 

to the extraordinary safety record of junior hunters. These restrictions are listed 

on the NYSDEC Web site at http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/license/

lichuntres.html.

On Long Island, the regular hunting season runs October 1 through December 

31, and is restricted to archery hunting only. There is a special season open for 

shotgun in parts of Suffolk County (including Wertheim), for about 3 weeks in 

January.

Comment: Proposed actions could result in a decrease in habitat quality and be 

detrimental to fish and wildlife populations. These actions include: 1) increasing 

amount of trails; 2) locating visitor center in quality wildlife habitat; 3) increasing 

public shoreline fishing access points; and 4) increasing hunting opportunities for 

some waterfowl species. Another commenter pointed out that hunting disturbs bird 

habitat more than walking or biking.

Response: The mission of the Refuge System clearly speaks to the challenge of 

balancing the needs of wildlife with the interests of the American people. A major 

challenge in managing and protecting wildlife refuges lies in managing people, 

or more specifically managing their behavior through both direct and indirect 

approaches. Wildlife and people can coexist together through the use of education, 

interpretation, permitting, activity prohibitions, and enforcement of regulations. 

One way of balancing the needs of wildlife and people is by permitting and 

encouraging wildlife-dependent public uses. Wildlife-dependent recreation is a 

priority public use of the Refuge System and, as such, is facilitated whenever it is 

found to be compatible with the purposes and management of the refuge. Attempts 

to minimize human impacts on refuge lands and wildlife are sometimes carried out 

through the use of signs and by the presence of refuge law enforcement officers. 

Visitor impacts are also lessened by limiting public access to certain designated 

area of a refuge; by containing visitors through the use of trails, boardwalks, and 

carefully placed ditches and vegetative plantings; by limiting and consolidating 

visitor use; and by imposing seasonal or permanent closures of certain sensitive 

areas. The use of observation platforms, mounted view scopes, and even auto 

tour routes can serve to provide visitors with a unique wildlife experience 

Hunting and Fishing

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 J-9
Appendix J

J-10 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

while permitting the larger expanse of refuge lands to remain untouched and 

undisturbed.

There are some who will argue that any form of public use will create a certain 

level of disturbance to wildlife, and therefore should not be permitted, especially 

on a “refuge.” Others, however, will make the case that direct exposure to wildlife 

and refuge lands will promote public awareness and appreciation and will foster 

conservation stewardship and long-term support for natural resources.

Comment: Hunting does not provide an economic benefit to an area. Another 

comment noted that national tax dollars should not contribute to hunting on 

refuges.

Response: Findings published in, Banking on Nature 2004: The Economic Benefits 

to Local Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation reveal recreational 

visits to National Wildlife Refuges generates substantial economic activity. In 

Fiscal Year 2004, more than 36.7 million people visited refuges for recreation. 

Their spending generated $1.37 billion of sales in regional economies. As this 

spending flowed through the economy, nearly 24,000 people were employed and 

$453.9 million in employment income was generated. About 68 percent of total 

expenditures are generated by non-consumptive activities on refuges. Fishing 

accounted for 27 percent and hunting 5 percent of total expenditures. As noted 

earlier, the Improvement Act clearly states that six wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses, including hunting, are the priority general public uses of the System.

Comment: One respondent cites text from appendix C-23, Resident Canada goose 

hunting compatibility determination that indicates, “the principle impacts likely 

would be the disruption of feeding patterns and the displacement from roost or 

feeding sites...” of federal and state listed species. 

Response: Potential impacts to federally listed species are carefully considered 

by the USFWS Endangered Species office. Additionally, the State of New York 

must submit a letter approving the opening of the hunt. Potential impacts are 

evaluated and Refuge Specific Regulations may be imposed to reduce disturbance 

or incidental mortality of non-target species.

The resident Canada goose hunt is being implemented, in part, as a widely 

accepted management tool to limit the increase of a particular species. The hunt is 

restricted to a period of approximately 3 weeks in September, before a significant 

number of migratory Canada geese arrive. 

Comment: Several reviewers questioned the use of the phrase “inviolate 

sanctuary” and its appropriate application to refuge purposes and objectives. 

These reviewers appear to understand the phrase inviolate sanctuary to mean 

closed to entry and therefore closed to hunting. 

Response: The Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (MBCA), 

defines the term “inviolate sanctuaries” where take of birds was prohibited. 

Subsequent amendments to the Duck Stamp Act and the Administration Act 

authorized the Secretary to allow hunting in these areas up to certain limits. 
If a refuge, or portion thereof, has been designated, acquired, reserved, or set 

apart as an inviolate sanctuary, we may only allow hunting of migratory game birds 

on no more than 40 percent of that refuge, or portion, at any one time unless we 

find that taking of any such species in more than 40 percent of such area would 

be beneficial to the species (16 U.S.C. 668dd(d)(1)(A), National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act; 16 U.S.C. 703-712, Migratory Bird Treaty Act; and 16 

U.S.C. 715a-715r, Migratory Bird Conservation Act). Generally, Regional Directors 

have the authority to change the number of acres open to hunting. However, before 

we can open more than 40 percent of an inviolate sanctuary to hunting, we must 

consider the reasons for doing so, and we must publish these reasons in the Federal 

Register. Because of this requirement, the Director, under delegation from the 

Secretary, must approve all proposals to open more than 40 percent of an inviolate 

sanctuary to migratory bird hunting. Refuge managers must carefully evaluate 

all such proposals to ensure the proposed action will be compatible. Inviolate 

sanctuary classification imposes no limits on hunting non-migratory birds or other 

game species.

Comment: Hunting should not be permitted simply because it is a refuge. The 

fact that this refuge is located in one of the most densely populated regions of the 

country makes it all the more important that the habitat be free of any pressure 

from human population.

Response: We agree that human encroachment and disturbance are major 

concerns for all involved in conservation, preservation and restoration of 

rapidly shrinking ecosystems. There are areas on Refuges where limiting 

human interference is a primary management objective, especially when 

impacts to a threatened or endangered species are possible. However, mandates 

outlined elsewhere in this document clearly describe our role in wildlife/habitat 

management and facilitating public uses deemed compatible with refuge purposes.

Comment: Page 2-17 stating that Wertheim is the only unit sizeable enough 

for deer hunting is contrary to statements made elsewhere about exploring the 

feasibility of a public hunting opportunity at Seatuck (Page 2-52) and conducting 

deer management activities at Seatuck, Morton and Conscience Point. The CCP 

should be rewritten to reflect that due to the size of Wertheim, it is the easiest unit 

to implement a hunt on or something similar.

Response: We have considered the option of a public archery deer hunt at Seatuck. 

Utilizing New York regulations and guidelines of a 500’ buffer zone, we estimate 

approximately 18 acres of deer habitat would be available for hunting. This 

estimate excludes salt marsh and grassland areas where archery deer hunting is 

not practicable. During the deer cull, we could fit 3 shooters in the safe zone and 

those three shooters have restricted zones of fire to ensure public safety. For these 

reasons and the relatively high costs associated with implementing public hunting 

for a small number of people, Seatuck may not be a feasible public hunting option. 

Other deer management activities (besides a public hunt) can still be considered 

at Seatuck, Morton and Conscience Point should overabundant deer become a 

problem. The CCP will reflect that due to its overabundant deer population and 

size, that Wertheim offers the best opportunity for a public deer hunt on the 

Complex

Hunting and Fishing

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 J-11
Appendix J

J-12 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Comment: Page 2-50 incorrectly designates mud turtles as a Species of Special 

Concern. They are State Endangered.

Response: We corrected the CCP to note the mud turtle status as “State 

Endangered.”

Comment: Since 2003, NYSDEC have been monitoring nesting piping plover 

on the sound side of the wetland at Frost Creek (near Oyster Bay NWR), and 

at Center Island and Stehli Beach. NYSDEC and the refuge should coordinate 

together.

Response: We agree. We updated the CCP to address piping plover at Oyster Bay 

(in addition to Morton, Target Rock and Amagansett NWRs).

Furbearer 

Management/ 

Trapping

Comment: Several reviewers would like to see the refuge offer a general trapping 

program. They are concerned about the increasing populations of mammals such 

as fox, raccoon, and coyote, and they believe development and restrictions on public 

access increasingly limit opportunities for trapping. 

Response: Trapping furbearers is not one of the six priority public uses. In 

addition, the refuge manager does not want to divert limited staffing and funding 

to administer this program, but plans to focus those resources on the six priority 

public uses. However, we may use furbearer management as an administrative tool, 

when needed, to protect federal trust resources of conservation concern, such as 

nesting migratory birds. The refuge manager will determine when conditions on 

the refuge warrant administrative trapping.

Comment: In general, from a wildlife management standpoint, I support all your 

proposed alternatives. Anything that expands monitoring, increases management 

capacity, and increases awareness of the importance of managing habitats for 

the benefit of wildlife is worthwhile. The role that hunting and trapping can play 

in managing habitat should be highlighted. With plover management at Morton, 

the electric fencing and enhanced stewardship proposal are great. It seems odd 

not to include management actions directed at the reason why electric fencing is 

necessary in the first place though. Predator management is important not only 

from an endangered species perspective, but with the advent of rabies on Long 

Island, it may also become important from a human disease vector perspective. 

USFWS preaches predator control to NGOs and private landowners to increase 

endangered species productivity and survival, so it seems logical to expect similar 

action on USFWS-managed properties with similar issues.

Response: On page 2-28 of the draft CCP/EA we stated the following strategy: 

“Assess red fox, raccoon, Norway rat, crow and gull populations at each refuge, 

and develop a predator management plan in collaboration with USDA Wildlife 

Services.” We will continue to work with our partners, including NYSDEC, to 

address predator management on the Complex.

Managing 

Threatened 

and 

Endangered 

Species
Comment: Removing mute swans by lethal and/or non-lethal means should be done 

by refuge staff only. Another commenter noted “I object to killing swans.”

Response: If necessary, mute swan control measures will be conducted by 

authorized refuge personnel. Service policy on maintaining biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of the System clearly states, “unless we 

determine that a species was present in the area of the refuge under historic 

conditions, we will not introduce or maintain the presence of that species...”

Even though they provide some aesthetic value for public enjoyment, mute swans 

are highly invasive of wetland habitats, impact native species of fish and wildlife, 

damage commercial agricultural crops, and pose a threat to human health and 

safety. As such, they cause serious nuisance problems and property damage, 

including economic loss. Because of their consumption of large quantities of 

submerged aquatic vegetation and their aggressive behavior, mute swan compete 

directly with many other water birds and fisheries for critical habitats. Due to their 

strong territorial defense, some pairs will vigorously defend nest and brood sites 

from intrusion by other wildlife and have attacked humans, causing serious harm. 

Adult mute swans will only be controlled when/if habitat degradation occurs or 

swan numbers become excessive.

Comment: “I feel the way it (Open Marsh Water Management - OMWM) is being 

monitored and evaluated at Wertheim is the only way we will be able to find what 

works and what doesn’t. Plus it is being done on a small scale – the pilot OMWM 

study at Wertheim has not ‘dug up and ruined’ all of the marshes. The less spraying 

that has to be done for mosquitoes the better off we will all be.”

Response: Comment noted; we agree.

Comment: A reviewer requested that guidelines for mosquito spraying on the 

refuge be clearly spelled out in the final CCP.

Response: A Mosquito Management Compatibility Determination is included in 

Appendix C of both the draft CCP/EA and final CCP.

Comment: Wertheim refuge has been trying to control Phragmites for years; 

various techniques have been experimented with but the reviewer has never seen 

published results.

Response: The Refuge has controlled Phragmites within the Big Fish Creek 

impoundment and in the upper tidal reaches of Little Neck Run and Yaphank 

Creek. Phragmites control programs have been developed in numerous salt 

marshes along the Atlantic seaboard. The Refuge has consulted with land 

managers and reviewed published literature to help us design our program. The 

Service monitors the effects of the Phragmites control projects, through ocular 

estimates, photo points, and the development of GIS maps of Phragmites stands. 

Because there is a considerable amount of information on Phragmites control 

available, the Refuge has not engaged in a detailed scientific research study. In the 

future, if promising control techniques are developed, the Refuge may consider 

participating in research projects to evaluate these new techniques.

Invasive/Nuisance Species Control

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 J-13

Invasive/

Nuisance 

Species 

Control
Appendix J

J-14 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Comment: There should be more written on the negative impacts of overabundant 

Canada geese. As I recall, there was considerable trouble with re-establishing 

plantings in the restoration areas at Wertheim due to browsing by resident geese. 

The issue with resident geese is very similar to your deer management priority in 

this regard (removal of overabundant species to promote regeneration of native 

cover types and hence greater biodiversity of trust species).

Response: We agree. Two important factors in the overgrazing of the restoration 

plantings were the small size of the planted areas and the low fencing used to 

exclude geese. At the nearby Beaver Dam Creek planting, fencing has successfully 

prevented overgrazing by geese in the areas planted in 2005 and 2006.

Outreach Comment: “Friends of Wertheim has been very fortunate because we have had the 

support of refuge staff and the Northeast Region from day one.” 

Response: Thank you. The Friends are an invaluable asset and partner in 

providing assistance and promoting refuge/Service goals.

Comment: Referring to the refuge’s endeavor’s to improve existing or develop 

new partnerships with groups involved in or influencing public use and resource 

conservation activities on and off the refuges, Stony Brook University is 

purchasing Southampton College from LI University and will continue their 

Marine Life program. Their combined program could make an excellent 

partnership/program with the refuge.

Response: We agree.

Comment: One reviewer requested greater mention of the Central Pine Barrens 

and their various councils and commissions that address land and habitat 

preservation, law enforcement, and invasive species within the text to signify the 

combined awareness and intention to preserve and manage this sensitive area. 

Furthermore, the reviewer suggested the plan address non-Service initiatives to 

designate and preserve habitat and open space with the Central Pine Barrens, and 

explore future partnerships.

Response: We agree. The text of the CCP has been revised to better reflect the 

contributions and features of the Central Pine Barrens.

Comment: Develop a train the trainer program so that STPS hike leaders can 

educate hike participants on the local flora and fauna on refuge trails.

Response: Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex staff welcomes the 

opportunity to assist the STPS and other interested organized group leaders in 

their educational and interpretive efforts while utilizing Complex lands. Train the 

trainer programs, written educational and interpretive materials, and audio-visual 

products are all possible methods of assistance. 
Oyster Bay

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 J-15

Comment: A reviewer requested more information regarding potential strategies 

and impacts of shellfishing and dredging operations in Oyster Bay. Another 

reviewer encourages the Service to ensure that commercial shellfishing remain 

viable and sustainable, as the industry provides has been active to preserve the 

water quality in the bay.

Response: The specific purpose of the Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge as 

established by the Migratory Bird Conservation Act is “for use as an inviolate 

sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” When the 

Town of Oyster Bay conveyed to the United States of America, the lands below the 

mean high water line in Oyster Bay, Cold Spring Harbor, and Mill Neck Creek, the 

deed included the same purpose for the Refuge. The deed also included “...as a 

nature preserve for the scientific, educational and aesthetic purposes and in order 

to preserve its natural beauty both for this generation and for future generations, 

and that said premises shall be kept and maintained entirely in their natural state 

and operated for the aforementioned purposes only, without any disturbance 

whatever of habitat or plant or animal populations and undisturbed by any 

activities that might adversely affect the flora or fauna, their natural habitat, or 

which would impair the essential natural character of the premises.” As a result of 

the deed, the Town of Oyster Bay retained certain rights regarding the regulation 

of shellfishing. The Service is working with partners such as NYSDEC, Friends of 

the Bay, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration/Fisheries, and 

our Ecological Services program to protect and maintain water quality, improve 

the quality of aquatic and wetland habitats, and assess the impacts of any activities 

in the Refuge that may degrade habitat or adversely affect fish and wildlife 

populations. The Service has also begun developing a Habitat Management Plan 

for the refuge which will contain step-down plans for projects such as monitoring 

fish and wildlife populations and habitats, and mapping and controlling invasive 

species. 

In regards to dredging operations, any dredging operation within the Refuge 

boundary will require a Compatibility Determination and a Special Use Permit, 

in addition to other State and Federal permits. The Refuge staff will assess the 

impacts associated with each individual project proposal, consult with other 

natural resource agencies and interested partners, and make a determination 

as to whether the project will significantly impact fish and wildlife resources or 

their habitats. In the event that a significant negative impact is likely, the Refuge 

will work with our partners and the applicant to avoid, minimize or mitigate the 

impacts as necessary. 

Comment: Two reviewers encourage the Service to increase public awareness of 

the refuge at Oyster Bay, and to weigh in on local threats to the refuge. A staffed 

office would be an excellent way of increasing the agency’s presence and would 

have an immediate positive effect on protecting the resources. Increasing visibility 

through new and additional signage would also be helpful.

Response: The Service is very much interested in working with partners, including 

the Friends of the Bay and the Waterfront Center, to improve our presence 

and visibility at Oyster Bay. Exploration of a shared, staffed office is one of the 

strategies we hope to accomplish.

Oyster Bay
Appendix J

J-16 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Comment: Establish a “water trail” around the bay for kayaks and canoes. This 

basically entails creating a map of access points, routes and points of interest, and 

making it available to the public. Improvements to access points, rest areas etc. 

could be made in cooperation with the surrounding municipalities that own many of 

these areas.

Response: The Complex agrees that a water trail for kayaks/canoes as a means 

of supporting wildlife-oriented recreation (fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, interpretation and environmental education) as well as improving 

access and points of interest at Oyster Bay is an excellent idea. The Complex will 

explore partnerships to expand and improve Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge’s 

wildlife-oriented recreational opportunities as resources allow.

Comment: Extend the existing 5mph zone from 200 feet from shore to at least 500 

feet from shore. This would make the bay safer and more desirable for low impact 

uses such as kayaking, canoeing and rowing, would help protect the shoreline from 

the erosion created by boat wakes, and would protect shorebirds and wildlife from 

motor traffic, all without prohibiting motor boats from using the bay. Make the 

Mill Neck Bay area that runs north and south from the Bayville strip to Beaver 

Dam a no motor zone (electric only). This area is only accessible to motorboats 

at high water anyway and would provide a refuge for wildlife from the noise and 

turbulence of boat traffic, especially on summer weekends, when the rest of the bay 

becomes a free for all.

Response: Safety and resource protection is of paramount concern to the Service 

in providing access for boating and other public uses of Oyster Bay National 

Wildlife Refuge. Based on a preliminary assessment, we feel that the 200 foot “No 

Wake Zone” provides boats without motors ample area of safe passage. However 

we will work with the U.S. Coast Guard (under Title 33 and Title 46), the State 

Department of Environmental Conservation and local authorities to evaluate the 

need for additional control measures in Oyster Bay, including the Mill Neck Bay 

area, and make any necessary changes. 

Comment: Help provide support and funding to acquire environmentally sensitive 

parcels of land connected to the Refuge such as the Mill Neck Bay Marina.

Response: As stated in the draft CCP/EA under “Actions Common To All 

Alternatives,” the refuge noted that in terms of ‘and acquisition, we will continue 

to acquire refuge inholdings within approved refuge boundaries as willing sellers 

become available. The refuge will also continue to consider minor acquisitions 

adjacent to existing refuges that are biologically important or provide connections 

with other protected lands of our conservation partners. The parcel of land known 

as the Mill Neck Bay Marina would fall into the category of being adjacent to 

the refuge, and the tract of land would be biologically important for the refuge 

to acquire. Although the refuge does not currently own the property, our office 

along with staff from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services office, 

continually review and monitor projects that occur within the Mill Neck Bay 

Marina area to ensure compliance with environmental laws and regulations. As 

new projects arise at the marina, we will work with the marina owners to utilize 

methods that cause the least amount of wildlife and land disturbance, and to 

minimize potential impacts to refuge property.
Comment: Encourage the surrounding municipalities to enter into an intermunicipal agreement to create an entity whose sole responsibility would be 

to protect and enhance the integrity of Oyster Bay Harbor and enforce all 

legislation that affects the integrity of the estuary on a watershed basis and makes 

recommendations to the municipalities on maintaining controls in place (i.e. street 

sweeping, siltation basin maintenance, repairs to roadway drainage washouts etc.). 

Another reviewer suggested more thought go into not duplicating the efforts of the 

TR Sanctuary and the Friends of the Bay.

Response: The CCP discusses the Service’s plan to improve communication and 

coordination with partners such Friends of the Bay, National Oceanographic and 

Atmospheric Administration/Fisheries, and the NYSDEC. We also consult with 

our Ecological Services Branch and the Coastal Program on specific projects that 

may impact the Refuge either directly or indirectly. As resources allow, we would 

be willing to develop memorandums of understanding with the various interested 

partners and municipalities with regard to various activities that may impact the 

Refuge. As stated above, activities proposed within the Refuge boundary will 

require a Compatibility Determination and a Special Use Permit, and may require 

other State and Federal permits. Personnel within the various agencies are likely 

to have expertise in different areas and the Refuge staff will seek their input. In 

the event that a significant negative impact is likely, the Refuge will work with our 

partners and the applicant to avoid, minimize or mitigate the impacts as necessary. 

Comment: Oyster Bay NWR does not meet criteria set for a waterfowl refuge 

– no activity that disturbs wildlife should be present. Original agreement was 

that activities traditionally present at time of refuge’s conception would continue. 

A group of influence prevailed upon the Department of Interior to exclude the 

traditional activity of waterfowl hunting. 

Response: The Town of Oyster Bay donated 2,400 acres to the Service in 1968 as 

a habitat for migratory birds, particularly wintering waterfowl, under authority of 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Act - it has since expanded to over 3,200 acres. 

The donation included deed restrictions for mineral rights and shell fishing leases. 

The refuge is mainly open water, and provides public uses such as fishing, crabbing, 

oystering, and recreational boating. An activity that disturbs wildlife can be 

allowed, as long as the use is determined to be compatible (i.e., does not materially 

interfere with or detract from the mission of the Refuge System, or the purposes 

for which the refuge was established). Waterfowl hunting occurred on the refuge 

until 1991, when the use was determined to be illegal as the Service never officially 

opened the area to hunting in accordance with the rulemaking requirements of the 

Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553). 

Oyster Bay

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 J-17
Infrastructure Comment: Extend the existing trail at Elizabeth A. Morton NWR to the end of 

Jessup’s Neck. Allow access for viewing the daffodils during peak bloom. 

Response: Protecting the threatened piping plover is a high priority legislated 

mandate. Accessing the area in question will result in disturbance to vital nesting 

and brood rearing habitats. Access to the area will remain closed during the 

breeding season. 

Comment: Create a handicapped accessible trail within Conscience Point NWR. 

Southhampton Trails Preservation Society (STPS) offers their assistance to 

facilitate this project.

Response: Opening and adding trails at Conscience Point NWR will be carefully 

considered. We must first detail, inventory and map the sensitive habitats and 

species currently present before we can determine the appropriateness and 

compatibility of opening the refuge and adding trails. The Service understands 

the public’s desire to be able to view plants and wildlife in representative natural 

landscapes. Therefore, the Complex plans on exploring partnerships with adjacent 

landowners to provide access to closed units, where access may involve our 

providing interpretive information kiosks and observation areas on properties 

adjacent to the refuge. 

Comment: Some reviewers support acquisition and use of the South Haven School 

on the Montauk Highway as the refuge visitor center and office facility.

Response: The Service’s preferred alternative features constructing a new facility 

on refuge property at the location specified in the CCP. The new permanent 

headquarters/visitor center will be constructed using an authorized standard 

design (medium model). The Service remains interested in seeing the school 

property protected, as it features habitat that can provide for wildlife. The 

Service did make an earlier attempt to acquire the school property for use as 

a headquarters/visitor center, but this effort could not be completed. We are 

concerned that rehabilitation costs for the school facility would be high, will not 

provide the administrative or public facilities needed, and will not be as cost 

effective (including operational costs) of a newer and more energy-efficient facility. 

If new information that addresses Service concerns becomes available at a later 

date, the Service will consider the information as part of the future decisionmaking process.

Comment: Some reviewers commented that they would prefer the existing refuge 

office not be demolished once the new building is completed.

Response: No decision has been made on the future of the existing office building, 

although the Service is interested in re-establishing habitat along the west side of 

the Carmans River once the new facility is built. 

Comment: A reviewer had concerns regarding the refuge’s unstated interim plan 

to use the observation field on the White Oak trail for offices and housing.

Response: The interim plan to address the immediate needs for a safe working 

and living environment for refuge staff is mentioned in the draft CCP/EA on pages 

Appendix J

J-18 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
2-9, 2-10, and 2-56. The refuge will work with the Friends of Wertheim to further 

explain details of the interim plan to the public in upcoming newsletters. 

Miscellaneous 

Comments

Comment: One reviewer had concerns regarding the human health effects of 

particulate matter as a byproduct of prescribed burning.

Response: Refuge fire management activities are subject to and must comply 

with all applicable Federal, State, and local air pollution control requirements 

as specified by Section 118 of the Clean Air Act, as amended 1990. Any planned 

activity requires a permit from the NYSDEC Air Pollution Division through the 

State Forest Rangers.

Comment: “Your bibliography is ancient and obsolete. How can you plan for the 

future when you use material from 40 years ago?”

Response: We used a sizable listing of citations, much of which came from peerreviewed journals. Data collected and conclusions drawn by the authors are not 

made invalid simply because of its age.

Comment: “It seems that decisions are made by each staff, and when staff changes 

plans change. I hope the CCP/EA will help to change that.”

Response: As stated on page 1-3 of the draft CCP/EA, the plan will provide 

strategic management direction over the next 15 years, and provide long-term 

continuity. However, the plan does allow the refuge manager some flexibility to 

respond to changing conditions on and around the refuges of the complex, and 

features adaptive management strategies to utilize with constantly evolving 

budgets, staff and issues. 

Comment: One respondent believes there was inadequate notice given to the wide 

range of refuge constituents, particularly animal protection groups. 

Response: Our public involvement process is described on pages 1-19, 1-20, and 

Chapter 5, of the draft CCP/EA. Scoping activities were begun in September 2000 

with news releases, paid advertisements, and announcements through our mailing 

list. A number of non-governmental organizations, including animal protection 

groups, are regularly notified of our Service CCP efforts.

Comment: What (water-based) uses (at Oyster Bay NWR) would be impacted by 

Alternative B?

Response: Current uses at Oyster Bay NWR would continue as noted in the CCP. 

The Service would clarify the criteria for legal private structures and the refuge’s 

authority and responsibility over them. The Service would like to complete the 

removal of illegal docks. We would work with the Town of Oyster Bay to address 

the number of boat moorings and fee structure and make any necessary changes. 

As a result of the deed for the refuge, the Town of Oyster Bay retains certain 

authority for regulating uses such as shellfishing. We would ensure that refuge 

Miscellaneous Comments

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 J-19
policies are consistent with the intent of the deed. New future uses proposed within 

the refuge would require a Compatibility Determination and a Special Use Permit, 

and may require other State and Federal permits. We would explore partnerships 

to provide new opportunities for wildlife-oriented recreation, and would coordinate 

with local partners to develop interpretive exhibits and programs. The Service 

would make every effort to inform user groups/stakeholders of potential changes in 

policies and provide an opportunity for their input prior to implementation.

Comment: What impact will climate change have on management of the refuge 

(e.g., sea level rise)? 

Response: Sea level rise is both a global and a complex issue, and likely goes 

beyond the scope of this document. There is probably not enough specific 

information at this point regarding sea level rise to make sound biological decisions 

or changing refuge management. The Long Island Complex CCP is a 15-year 

planning document. At this point, the effects of climate change are likely negligible 

over the 15 year expected cycle of the plan. As new issues come up, we will address 

them at that time.

Nevertheless, climate change currently threatens vital coastal marshes, where salt 

marsh accretion processes may not always keep pace with projected increases in 

sea level rise. This can lead to marshes becoming too flooded resulting in extensive 

plant mortality, peat erosion and loss of elevation. If erosion is significant the 

marsh may be converted to open water or mudflat.

In other instances where salt marshes accrete at the same pace as sea level rise but 

where there are not adjacent low lying upland areas marshes may be “squeezed 

out” between rising sea levels (loss due to flooding) and an inability of marsh 

vegetation to “jump” steep elevation grades, particularly those posed by seawalls 

or other shoreline structures. A recent phenomenon, sudden wetland dieback, also 

is causing a decrease in salt marsh vegetation. The extent, cause and duration of 

this problem remain unknown. 

In addition to salt marshes, the refuge complex supports other coastal habitats 

including beach, intertidal mudflats, marine open water, tidal river, maritime 

shrubland, and upland forests. These habitats provide critical buffers to the marsh 

as well as critical habitat to many aquatic and upland species of conservation 

concern.

Comment: The FAA property at Sayville should be transferred to the Service as 

previous legislation dictated.

Response: The Service continues to make the transfer of 101 acres from FAA at 

the Sayville site to the Service complete.

Appendix J

J-20 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Appendix K

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

View of the beach at Target Rock refuge.

M. Lin/USFWS

Finding of No Significant Impact

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 K-1

Finding of No Significant Impact

Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

In June 2006, we published the draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

(CCP/EA) for the Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Complex). The Complex includes the 

Amagansett, Conscience Point, Elizabeth A. Morton, Oyster Bay, Seatuck, Target Rock, and Wertheim 

refuges, the Lido Beach Wildlife Management Area and the Sayville Unit of the Wertheim refuge. 

That draft evaluates three alternatives for managing the Complex over the next 15 years, and carefully 

considers their impacts on the environment and their potential contribution to the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and refuge purposes and goals. Its appendixes provide additional 

information supporting the assessment. None of the alternatives proposes that we acquire additional land 

at this time. A brief overview of each alternative follows.

Alternative A: The Council of Environmental Quality regulations on implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) require this “No Action” alternative. It would not change our 

resource management programs on refuge lands. Partnerships with federal, state, county, town, 

and non-governmental organizations and volunteers will continue to form the core of management 

activities. The priorities of the biological program will continue focusing on threatened and 

endangered species, habitat restoration, and the management of invasive or nuisance species. 

We will continue to promote white-tailed deer management at Wertheim refuge with a controlled 

public hunt. Fishing opportunities will remain as they are, but with improvements to the fishing 

access site at Wertheim. Other priority public use programs will continue—primarily wildlife 

observation, nature photography, and interpretation. Those will focus on units in the Complex that 

offer such visitor facilities as parking, nature trails, information kiosks, and restrooms. Selecting 

this alternative would maintain the status quo in refuge management over the next 15 years. Thus, 

it provides a baseline for comparing or contrasting the two “action” alternatives.

Alternative B: The draft CCP/EA identifies this alternative as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service)-proposed action. Selecting this alternative would increase our protection and 

management of endangered, threatened or other species of concern, including migratory wildlife. 

It is designed to expand and improve opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation, and allow 

the complex to benefit from its proximity to New York City and urban communities. 

Alternative C: Under this alternative, we would implement a stricter approach to managing the Complex 

and its biological resources with less emphasis on providing visitor services. It is designed to 

minimize human intrusion or intervention, except when necessary to protect threatened or 

endangered species, control invasive species, respond to natural disasters, or enforce regulations. 

It would focus on maintaining such public use infrastructure as nature trails and information 

kiosks, but would restrict access and the number of public programs offered. Outreach and law 

enforcement efforts will have to be increased using current staff to communicate the changes in 

management under this alternative. The Complex will maintain a volunteer program, rely more 

on partners to help conduct biological inventories and monitoring and organize environmental 

education and interpretation programs, but limit the use of seasonal employees and interns.

We distributed the draft CCP/EA for a 31-day period of public review and comment from June 19, 2006 

through July 19, 2006. We received 29 written responses, plus additional comments at public meetings. 

Appendix I in the final CCP includes a summary of those comments and our responses to them. 
Appendix K

K-2 Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

After reviewing the proposed management actions, considering all public comments and our responses to 

them, I have determined that the analysis in the EA is sufficient to support my findings, described below. 

I am selecting draft CCP/EA Alternative B (the Service-proposed action) as the final CCP for 

implementation, with these clarifications.

1) Safety will be our paramount consideration in further developing the hunting program. Hunters 

must abide by all state and federal safety regulations related to hunting near roads and dwellings. 

New York State hunting regulations make it illegal to discharge a hunting weapon so that its load, 

shot or arrow, passes over any part of a public highway or within 500 feet of any building. We will 

continue to implement hunts for white-tailed deer, and design the resident Canada goose hunt with 

the utmost consideration for the safety of refuge hunters, visitors and refuge neighbors. As one 

example, we will post highly visible signs at the refuge entrance and at strategic locations along 

the refuge perimeter well before the hunt begins. Youth hunters are required to be accompanied 

by a New York state licensed adult, and all hunters must participate in a refuge-specific hunter 

orientation. Each hunt provides a management tool to help control overabundant populations, and 

also wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities for local sportsmen. 

2) The Service’s preferred alternative features constructing a new facility on refuge property 

at the location specified in the CCP. Some reviewers proposed we utilize an abandoned school 

property adjacent to Wertheim NWR for the new headquarters site. The Service remains 

interested in seeing the school property protected, as it features habitat that can provide for 

wildlife. The Service did make an earlier attempt to acquire the school property for use as 

a headquarters/visitor center, but this effort could not be completed. We are concerned that 

rehabilitation costs for the school facility would be high, will not provide the administrative or 

public facilities needed, and will not be as cost effective (including operational costs) of a newer 

and more energy-efficient facility. If new information that addresses Service concerns becomes 

available at a later date, the Service will consider the information as part of the future decisionmaking process.

3) We received comments urging us not to tear down the “hunting lodge” currently used at the 

refuge office at Wertheim once the new headquarters/visitor center is constructed. No decision has 

been made on the future of the existing office building, although the Service is interested in reestablishing habitat along the west side of the Carmans River once the new facility is built. 

4) Extending and adding trails at Morton NWR and Conscience Point NWR will be carefully 

considered. We must first detail, inventory and map the archaeological and cultural features, 

sensitive habitats and species currently present before we can determine the appropriateness and 

compatibility of new trails on the refuges. Safety will be another important consideration. The 

Service understands the public’s desire to be able to view plants and wildlife in representative 

natural landscapes, and we will explore ways to be able to facilitate future access.

5) The Service will strive to increase public awareness of the refuge at Oyster Bay. We will work 

with our partners to explore ideas to enhance the refuge’s presence and visibility, and promote a 

positive effect on protecting the resources.

6) The Compatibility Determination for Maintenance Dredging included in the draft CCP/EA 

will be withdrawn from the final CCP. The Service instead will evaluate maintenance dredging at 

Seatuck and Morton refuges to maintain existing navigable waterways on a case-by-case basis, 

and will issue special use permits if found appropriate and compatible with the purposes for which 

both refuges were established. 
Finding of No Significant Impact

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2006 K-3

7) Region 5 has recently identified “areas of emphasis” with regards to the six priority wildlifedependent recreational uses for every refuge. The Long Island NWR Complex has been identified 

for environmental education and interpretation. Thus, we will further consider this recognition as 

we implement the strategies of the CCP over the next 15 years.

I have selected Alternative B as modified for several reasons. It helps fulfill the mission of the NWRS; 

best achieves the refuge purpose, vision, and goals; maintains and, where appropriate, restores the 

ecological integrity of the refuge; addresses the major issues identified during the planning process; and 

is consistent with the principles of sound fish and wildlife management. 

I find that implementing Alternative B adheres to all legal mandates and Service policies, and will not 

have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment, in accordance with Section 102(2)(c) 

of the NEPA. Therefore, I have concluded that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required, and 

this Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate and warranted. 

_________________________________ _________________________

Marvin E. Moriarty Date 

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Hadley, Massachusetts

ABS Area of Biological Significance

ACJV Atlantic Coast Joint Venture

BCA Bird Conservation Area

BCR Bird conservation region

CATX Categorical Exclusion

CCP Comprehensive Conservation

Plan

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CWCS Comprehensive Wildlife

Conservation Strategy

DEC (New York State) Department of

Environmental Conservation

DOI (U.S.) Department of the Interior

DOS (New York) Department of State

DU Ducks Unlimited

EA Environmental Assessment

EE Environmental Education

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FR Federal Register

FWS (U.S.) Fish & Wildlife Service

GIS Geographic Information System

GPS Global Positioning System

HMP Habitat Management Plan

LE Law Enforcement

LIFO Long Island Field Office

LIIPS Long Island Institute of 

Professional Studies

LISS Long Island Sound Study

LPP Land Protection Plan

MBP Migratory Bird Program

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards

NABCI North American Bird

Conservation Initiative

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOI Notice of Intent

NAWMP North American Waterfowl

Management Plan

NOAA National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration

NPS National Park Service

NYDOS New York Department of State

NYFTTA New York Fishing Tackle Trade 

Association

NYSDEC New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation

NYSDOT New York State Department of

Transportation

OMWM Open Marsh Water Management

PIF Partners in Flight

PILT Payments in Lieu of Taxes

RM Refuge Manual

ROD Record of Decision

SCDHS Suffolk County Department of 

Health Services

SUP Special Use Permit

T&E Threatened and Endangered

TNC The Nature Conservancy

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USFWS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WMA Wildlife Management Area

WUI Wildland Urban Interface

Acronyms
Long Island

National Wildlife Refuge Complex

P.O. Box 21, 360 Smith Road

Shirley, NY 11967

631/286 0485

631/286 4003 FAX

http://longislandrefuges.fws.gov

E-mail: longislandrefuges@fws.gov

Federal Relay Service

for the deaf and hard-of-hearing

1 800/877 8339

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov

For Refuge Information

1 800/344 WILD

September 2006