Virginia Coast Reserve study, March 31, 1976

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

I UU.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
X i CO'ASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
u ( CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

I
COASTAL ZONE
STEWARDSHIP / 9 INFORM DONC CENTER

THE VIRGINIA COAST RESERVE STUDY

March 31, 1976 * '-nRTv OF TH-E-
UNITELD S'ATi-.S C:,;'-. T:: .T,
I.ATM: O-:,!AL i.;::.i.. , i'
Principal Research ers:
For Re enviln
Ray M. Culter
Gerard J. Hennes. ey When no Inr .:. -. , :
John W. Humke ro, to: TcficCi h .:
Robert E. Jenkit.s EB-akch - DJ23
Margaret S. LukowsAf

The Nature Conservancy
1800 N. Kent Street
Arlington, Virginia 22209

The acquisition and preservation of the Virginia Coast Reserve and the preparation
of this report was conducted by The Nature Conservancy and supported by The Mary
~ Flagler Cary Charitable Trust.
proper'ty of CSC Library

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................. iv

REPORT FORMAT ...... vi

INTRODUCTION.......................................... vii

AGENCY ANALYSIS .......................................1

STEWARDSHIP STRATEGY . . . ............................... 79

ECOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS ......................... 95

APPENDIX.............................................. 134

COA$TAL Z E
INFORNA71G MCENTER

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Numerous individuals, organizations and public agencies provided information,
advice and assistance in preparing the Stewardship Volume of the
Virginia Coast Reserve Study. While space does not allow individual recognition
of each, it is obvious that a work of this nature is a collective effort. The
Nature Conservancy gratefully acknowledges this assitance.

Certain individuals made special contributions of time and expertise. These
include individuals who offered conceptual and proffessional guidance and those
who served on the Virginia Coast Reserve Advisory Committee throughout the course
of this'18-month study, especially: Michael Castagna, Scientist in Charge of the
Virginia Institute of Marine Science Laboratory at Wachapreague, Virginia; John
Clark, Senior Associate of the Conservation Foundation; Ray M. Culter, Director
of Land Stewardship for The Nature Conservancy; and, F. Victor Schmidt, Assistant
to the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the
Interior. Nature Conservancy staff who contributed to this volume include: Robert
M. Chipley, Sue Dodge, James W. MacFarland, Teresa Mier and Marcia Mink. The
maps in this volume were drafted by Melisa Dooley from data provided by the
various researchers.

Many people affiliated with federal, state and local agencies also provided
indespensible assistance. J. C. Appel, John Carlson, John Davis, George
Garris, Larry Givens, Dennis Holland, Ellis Klett, Walt McAllister, Jim
Pulliam and Walt Steiglitz of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service all aided the preparation of this material as did Don
Humphreys of the National Park Service. The Commonwealth of Virginia
provided assistance through several offices, principally via Ben Bolen,
Division of Parks; Chester Phelps, James McInteer and John Crumb, Commission
of Game and Inland Fisheries, Rob Blackmore, Commission of Outdoor Recre-
ation and Bud Leynes and William Bolger, Division of State Planning and
Community Affairs. Local sources of input included the members of Plan-
ning District 22, the Accomack and Northamptom Counties' Board of Supervisors,
County Administrators Kieth Bull and C. M. Williams, and Recreation
Commissioners Don Hull and Rebecca McCann.

We also acknowledge DeVereBurt for the cover drawing and John W. Taylor
for the other artwork in this volume.

STUDY DIRECTOR: Gerard J. Hennessey

STUDY COORDINATOR: Ray M. Culter

THE VIRGINIA COAST RESERVE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Michael Castagna: Scientist in Charge - Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Laboratory at Wachapreague, Virginia.
John Clark: Senior Associate - The Conservation FotUndation.
Ray M. Culter: Director of Land Stewardship, The Nature Conservancy.
F. Victor Schmidt: Assistant to the Director, United States Fish and Wildlife
Service.

I
THE, NATURE CONSERVANCY
I

The Nature ,Conservancy is a national conservation organization, receiving its
support from the public, whose objective is to preserve and protect ecologically
and environmentally significant land and the diversity of life it supports.

To achieve this goal, the Conservancy purchases lands using its revolving fund
which is then replenished through fund raising; accepts gifts of land, retains
and provides stewardship for 60% of all- projects; works with local, state and
federal governments to identify and protect important natural areas and acquires
and manages land in advance of government agencies' ability to do so.

Some. 878,678 acres of forests, swamps, marshes, prairies, mountains, beaches, and
islands in 1,516 projects throughout the United States have been saved from de-
struction by the Conservancy since the acquisition of its first preserve in 1954.

A member-governed non-profit organization, The Nature Conservancy was incorporated
in 1951 in the District of Columbia for scientific and educational purposes.

OFFICERS

CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD SECRETARY
William D. Blair, Jr. Richard S. Weinstein

VICE CHAIRMEN TREASURER
Frank D. Boren Robert Bennett
Alfred Heller

BOARD OF GOVERNORS
John E. Andrus, III Thomas L. McCall
John D. Archbold M. Graham Netting
Frederick E. Balderston John B. Oakes
Mrs. W.L. Lyons Brown Eugene P. Odum
Wallace C. Dayton Ruth Patrick
G. William DeSousa A. Timmon Primm, III
William DuPont John T. Ricks
Richard H. Durrell Mrs. David Rockefeller
Richard H. Goodwin Francis W. Sargent
Charles C. Haffner, III Mrs. L.M.C. Smith
R. Phillip Hanes, Jr. Athelstan Spilhaus
William E. Howard Stephen H. Spurr
Roy E. Larsen Mrs. Thomas M. Waller
Warren M. Lemmon Mrs. Charles P. Yarn, Jr.
Dan W. Lufkin

REPORT FORM4ATI

This is one of the volumes of the Virginia Coast Reserve Study, a preserve manage- 3

ment feasibility study conducted by The Nature Conservancy. The study consists

of four separate volumes. Each-incorporates related disciplines. The volumes

are titled and designated numerically.I

Volume I, The Ecosystem Description

Volume 11, Legislative Compendium, Title Search and-AcquisitionI
Priorities

Volume III, Social and Economic Analysis

Volume IV, Stewardship

These sections are explained further in the Introduction.

vi~~~~

INTRODUCTION

The marshes and islands of the Virginia Coast Reserve are a precious resource. They
are the least disturbed remnant of the thin green line of wetlands which once
cloaked the Eastern Seaboard. They include beaches, maritime forests and thickets,
sand dunes, grasslands, and salt marsh communities and provide a variety of
habitats to adapted associations of terrestrial fauna, upland birds, waterfowl
and plant species. Simultaneously they serve as a buffer separating the fragile
fertile marshes and agricultural land of the Eastern Shore of Virginia from the
Atlantic-Ocean, support a large sector of the Shore's economy and provide an
accessible aesthetic resource. Poorly planned development and wetlands alteration
have accounted for the desecration of much of this resource along most of the Eastern
United States' coastline. The Virginia Barrier Islands represented the last intact
set of islands which faced this plight. Their relative isolation had protected
them for years.

STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
The Virginia Coast Reserve consists of approximately 33,371 acres of barrier-
islands and marshes owned by The Nature Conservancy on the Eastern Shore of Virginia.
It contains thirteen islands (see Eastern Shore of Virginia map, page viii). The
barrier islands of the reserve are Metomkin, Cedar, Parramore, Hog, Cobb, Ship
Shoal, Myrtle, and Smith. The reserve's Revel and Rogue Islands are upland islands
which do not front on the Atlantic Ocean. Sandy, Godwin, and Mink Islands are
salt marsh components of the system. The Conservancy owns these islands with
the exception of major portions of Cedar Island and small parts of Hog and Smith
Islands. All of the Virginia Coast Reserve may be reached from the adjacent
peninsula by boat but there are no roads connecting the islands with the mainland.
This system stretches along the southern seaward edge of the Delmarva Peninsula,
a coastal plain outcrop, for about fifty-one miles. The islands represent the most
unaltered barrier island-lagoon complex along the east coast of North America.
Latitude-longitude coordinates for the Virginia Coast Reserve are 370 05', 370 34'N
and 750 56', 750 37'W.

The low lying islands' eastern border is the Atlantic Ocean. At intervals along
the coast inlets connect the sea with the extensive lagoon system westward of the
reserve. These lagoons typically have salinities of 25 to 34 parts per thousand.
The tidal range along the ocean front of the islands normally averages 4.2 feet
but may reach nine feet or more during excessive storm surges. The expansive marshes
behind the barrier islands are much incised and well flushed by tidal action.
Brackish and fresh water occurs in the interior of the larger islands at the head
of their upland drainages or as small ponds.

Biological communities of the reserve are controlled by the islands' dynamic geology.
The sandy soil of the islands is in a constant state of flux, subjected to the in-
fluences of wind, tidal currents, temporary stabilization by vegetation and high
energy input along the coastal front. The system has a wide diversity of aquatic
and terrestrial biota.

Human influence on the system has been persistent but for the most part, it has
not altered the Reserve's integrity. The present Virginia Coast Reserve has been
traditionally used for pastureland, pirateering, waterfowl and shorebird market
hunting, resort development, and homesites. These human impacts have had little
long term effect on the structure and function of the islands' natural systems.
Their resiliency, isolation, and inaccessability protect them from most direct
human influences.

vii

The Eastern Shore of Virginia is a peninsula bordered on the east by the Atlantic
Ocean and on the west by the Chesapeake Bay. It is the mainland adjacent to the
Virginia Coast Reserve's islands. The landmass is divided into two counties;
Northampton, the southern county, and Accomack, the northern county. The region
is the southernmost extension of the Delmarva Peninsula, a physiographic unit
encompassing Delaware and parts of Maryland and Virginia. The Eastern Shore is
75 miles long. It contains 70% of Virginia's total shoreline and 47% of her salt
marshes.3

The peninsula supports a rural population dependent primarily on agriculture
and fisheries for subsistance. Land use categories of the peninsula include 29.1%
agricultural land, 29% woodland, 32.2% tidal marsh, 1.5% coastal beach, and 8.2%
miscellaneous. The Shore has been historically isolated. Until 1964, the peninsula
was only accessible from the rest of the state by a ferry which crossed the
Chesapeake Bay. U.S. Route 13 entered the region from the north throughiMaryland'
Now, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel connects the southern tip of the Eastern
Shore to the mainland via a 17 mile span crossing the mouth of the Chesapeake
Bay. The area has traditionally beech an isolated cul-de-sac. This fact, more
than any other, was responsible for the maintenance of a rural life style and the
preservation of the Virginia Barrier Islands until the time they were acquired
and insured preservation by The Nature Conservancy.

In 1967 the sanctity of the Virginia Barrier Islands was threatened when developers
considered building a bridge connecting Smith Island, in the south of the island
chain, with the mainland. The ill-suited development typical of other coastal
systems had come at last. Convention centers, airports, and second-home subdivisions
were planned. The Nature Conservancy purchased the island from developers with
funds provided by The Mary Flagler Cary Charitable Trust to insure the preservation
of the island. This acquisition triggered the ensuing chain of purchases which
ultimately led to the formation of today's Virginia Coast Reserve, a chain of
thirteen islands preserving this coastal resource.
STUDY OBJECTIVES
The objective of The Nature Conservancy's involvement with the Virginia Barrier
Islands is to insure the perpetual preservation of this'unique barrier island-lagobn
ecosystem.

The Conservancy's concern for the barrier islands has been exemplified through the
Virginia Coast Reserve Study. The objective of this investigation was to establish
a base line of information that would yield an understanding of the operationally
significant factors governing the stewardship of the island system. The study was
divided into four separate sections. Objectives were set for each portion of the
research.

1. Objectives of the Legislative Compendium, Title Search and Acquisition
Priorities Section
a. Provide The Nature Conservancy with a clear image of its ownership
and inholdings within the reserve system.

b. Compile the legislation which pertains to the ownership of the islands,
marshland and adjacent riparian and subaquatic rights to determine
how it affects land stewardship.

c. Establish a strategy for the further acquisition of key lands within
this island-lagoon system that are worthy of preservation from an
ecological or strategical perspective.

ixI

VIRGINIA
NCOTEAGUE
BAY

BEASLEY
A
SAY

AN INLET

PARKSLEY

RQATJHY INLET

CD ETOMKIN ISLAND
OMAC

GNIKIN INLET

ISLAND y
Pr-llxz

WACHAPREAGUE

EAQUE 'INLET
NOY

Tiv

AR E ISLAND
LLIS

INSY INLET

a ISLAND a 95 9 Tp
0 BAN

MACHIPONGO IN

LE c-

QS8

DYSTE

c RECK IS EASTERN SHORE OF VIRGINIA

SW
INLET
SHOAL ISLAND WAS

E ISLAND -r

LE INLET

VIRGINIA COAST RESERVE STUDY
CAPE CHARLES
The Nature Conservancy
ISLAND INLET
ISLAND

m m m - ~~~~ ~~ --- m Mill-

BEASLEY

RAHY INLET

CAPE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I INALET

UISH N ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ISLAND

2. Objectives of the Ecosystem Description Section

a. Identify the limiting ecological factors which must be known in
order to administer the Reserve, preserving its unique qualities.

b. Define the ecological components of the system to begin the establish-
ment of a monitoring program which will expose the scientific com-
munity to the potential for innovative research possibilities within
the Virginia Coast Reserve.

3. Objectives of the Social and Economic Analysis Section

a. Establish economic baseline information about the two counties within
the Eastern Shore of Virginia.

b. Assess effects of the preservation of the Virginia Coast Reserve
Study on the local communities of Accomack. and Northampton Counties.

c. Assess the impacts of potential regional growth, land-use, and
recreational needs on the Virginia Coast Reserve.

d. Assess the indirect socio-economic benefits of the Virginia Coast
I Reserve associated with preservation of the system.

e. Determine popular opinion regarding the preservation of the Virginia
Coast Reserve.

4. Objectives of the Stewardship portion of the Virginia Coast Reserve Study

a. Develop a list of the stewardship needs and procedures which offer
maximum protection for the system.

b. Determine agencies capable of accomplishing these goals and where
ultimate stewardship responsibility should lie.

c. Establish a preliminary management scheme accommodating preservation,
research, education, and if appropriate, recreation.

d. Determine the cost associated with this management scheme.

To achieve these objectives, the Virginia Coast Reserve Study coalesced the
efforts of more than thirty professional administrative and research personnel.
The experience and input of Eastern Shore residents also contributed to collecting
this data.

LEGISLATIVE COMPENDIUM, TITLE SEARCH AND ACQUISITION
At the time of the acquisition of the Virginia Barrier Islands, the Conservancy
became part of a parcel of difficulities including counter claims for ownership
of the system, diverging interpretations in the chain of title to certain tracts,
varying interpretations of existing island and wetlands-related legislation, and
threats to the effectiveness of our preservation scheme from "inholdings" within
the island system and lands owned adjacent to the reserve. We employed the full-
time assistance of an environmental lawyer to catalogue, interpret and resolve
these difficulties.

A complete title search was also conducted to determine the present ownership
pattern of the barrier islands. This ownership information provided a basis from

which to assess the security of the Conservancy's present position as the controlling
landowner within the island system, and of the intentions of insuring preservation
of the complex. A review of the situation fostered the preparation of an acqui-
sition strategy designed to fill the gaps in the present pattern of ownership.

At the same time, the complex environmental legislation pertinent to the administrationi
of this marine wetlands area at federal, state and local levels was collected. The
laws which may be used to insure the integrity of the reserve were compended. This
allows their quick and efficient utilization in the administration of the reserve. 3

ECOSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Information already existing pertinent to the natural history of the reserve has
been collected. Additional basic field work was also completed to compliment this
data.

The documentation of existing material included compilation of publications, maps,
aerial photographs and other supportive material. The supply of existing com-
prehensive ecological data was scarce. Some information was available in the fields 3
of geology, ornithology, and rudimentary plant community associations. A substantial
body of material existed regarding the fisheries resources of the waters surrounding
the island chain.

Supplementary ecological work was undertaken with the intention of complimenting 1
existing data so that predictions and stewardship decisions based on a fundamental
understanding of the ecology of the Virginia Coast Reserve system could be made. 3
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The barrier islands represent a valuable resource to the Eastern Shore of Virginia.
They offer a livelihood to some by protecting marshland which provides a haven for
marketable fish and shellfish. They offer attributes to residents of the "seaside"
of the peninsula by buffering the shoreline from storm surges and winds. More
intangible benefits are realized by a wider spectrum of the population. The is-
lands are an integral part of the rural life style, the preferred quality of life,
of the Eastern Shoreman.

These aspects, the benefits of the Virginia Barrier Islands to the local economy,
lifestyle, and the residents' perception of the Eastern Shore, are analyzed in this
section of the study. By the purchase of the barrier islands, the Conservancy has
become the largest property owner in both Accomack and Northampton Counties. Ad-
dressing both the economic and social arguments for and against preservation of
this huge system required the full-time assistance of a professional economist and
the assistance of several contractual personnel from Salisbury State College, a
local institution.

The economic analysis centered on the benefits and costs of barrier island preser-
vation. This approach incorporated their tangible benefits and costs to the local
communities and tangible and intangible benefits on a regional basis. Additionally,
a detailed analysis of Virginia's Eastern Shore economy, in terms of the utilization 3
of the local resource base, was conducted. The intent of this investigation was
to assess the effect of barrier island preservation from the economic perspective
of the Eastern Shore's citizenry. I

The "quality of life" on the Eastern Shore is a well debated issue in local circles.
The average citizens' perception of their lifestyle and general well being are clues

xi I

to the satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the style of life that The Nature
Conservancy's natural area acquisition philosophy tends to preserve. The Con-
servancy was interested in determiningwhether its activities in the Virginia
Barrier Islands were in accordance with or in opposition to the majority of sentiment
of local residents. To assess these feelings, a broadly-based opinion poll of a
representative sample of Eastern Shore citizens was conducted. Its aim was to
gather data'directly applicable to determining the "quality of life" dilemma here;
were local residents happy with life as it is and the barrier islands as they are?
The direct answers to these and associated questions have fostered conclusions
about the Eastern Shore residents' perception of The Nature Conservancy's operations
in this area and their wishes for the future of the Eastern Shore.

STEWARDSHIP
Effective administration of the reserve by any agency depends on the recognition
of stewardship realities. In this section of the Virginia Coast Reserve Study,
these were assessed and a scheme to deal with them is proposed.

Initially, a list of needs and procedures prerequisite to preserving the Virginia
Barrier Islands was developed. The remainder of this section of the study dealt
with how best to insure their fulfillment.

One of the greatest unknowns for the Virginia Barrier Islands preservation strategy
was the ultimate managing agency for the system. It has traditionally been the
Conservancy's policy to transfer some of its finest preserves to federal or state
agencies interested in their management. Recently, a decision to internalize the
management of selected preserves was made in accordance with The Nature Conservancy's
model preserve "1980 Program". These conflicting policies had to be resolved in
the best interest of the Virginia Barrier Islands.

The stewardship capabilities and policies of The Nature Conservancy and selected
federal, state, and county agencies were examined. The interest each group had
in the islands was assessed. Each agency's program was inspected to see whether
it fit into the Conservancy's plan for the preservation of the Reserve. Finally,
a review of their legislative, financial and enforcement abilities rounded out the
-picture.

The success or failure of The Nature Conservancy's own participation in this
Virginia Coast Reserve management blend will be based on an operating budget.
Present operating funds have been fully utilized in the preparation of this document.
To continue operation requires the coordination of our management priorities and
approximating an associated operating budget.

The stewardship option available to the Virginia Coast Reserve under the Conservancy's
supervision is incorporated in this report. The scheme accommodates preservation,
research and educational uses in differing proportions. This proposed stewardship
plan addresses the number and functions of proposed. Convervancy staff personnel
to fulfill this preservation scheme, equipment requirements, office space and
housing needs, future acquisition, and required research costs. The plan's
implementation depends upon the identification of funding sources to power these
programs.

Xii

"XI~~~~~I
ft~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~p~i Albani ftff tf
1p! ~4~ ft 1t. fftfttft ~4 fftfttft t ~ f*~!44~' .'' ',.. . f

AI~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~'tt[ptff~ tLfi'j!',4ii'4I 4'f'~'l'[:i4': 'G'1~

Indiana' f 4ti '''ttlfff'" ~ P~f~4ff.~P I[ *tt[, : 1'~ ~ ff f l~[~'''

4 ~ '4 ! ft i'!~1''~'ft!I''l 4 .'Al4'kf'~t~~tiI~!!P f.I 4~~~:If~t4 '' ':I ' f

Baltic;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

aidPt144tPfI~~f I

id~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~tf~[fffff~t ff..,4.I~~['ff '

ft ftftft,.4..ftft ft~~~~'ftft~~ PP'[Pftj'..41'a

i,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A I 4 appicbiit ft~ I
t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~f'tf[4p " ft 4 ft
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'I' '' ' fftt f 4ffttf f

'.ftft .44'ftI'.ft...'..ft."d~~~ft~l ft I ' ftft'I P.4 1'ftp~
ji I~PpI 4 tt ~ t t4'~'p ttf

3 ft 4.4.[Pft[.~~~~~~~~~~~~4ft~~~~ftft~~~~ft. ft ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~~44 ~ ~ ~ ~ 4' . '~~~~~~' IF.
4."" I'" ftft',''P'ft~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ft['4ft "''4~~~~~~~~~~ 4 ft4 "ft1P'i~~~~~~~~~~~~4P~~~:ft4~~~~~44Lft ft ['ft 1 'ft~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0

ft. ftftft~~ft[[lft ft.,ftft~~ ~ . '...I'~~ft I ftft44:4ftI~in
ft ' '4' ft4 t'~ ~:jli: 44 fti

'ft. *'~ ~ ~~~~~~L ktffl jftf I4

.I' ' 'ftltf4 t p4~4P ft ftft'fti~p4a~j'Pi~!''P4. I I~~4~I'iI~'li4~ftPI~ft ft[,t~f~ .f4 ' p.~:;p~;i1~h ~ J4P~PpI''''ft "f f

3 'ftftft4.["ft~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ft44;.i~~~~~~I.[ftt q;1 ft4 C IP.'iI. .f.ftp 4t f fitftf

m ftftft~fttftftft ft ft . ~ '''!~'' '' . ft[4.[P,4ft4441ft..ti,.i 4I~II~Pftp[.ft~tP'ft[4.,It'ft!Pft f' 4 ft .ft.ft4.[.ft.'PP~ft[4ft t.'.ftlp l~ ''llI[44t'ft4 '''f'ft'''[,, 'Ift"''' f

ft4. 'tf''t'1 f ~ ~ . t~t ~fltf t[.f JP4tfff~fff~ttf4ff

ftClaf 4 4[ftt f iedtfttfffttff 1 ~ I I ! ; t 1f''f't1P44ff~t4 ~..,. t't~tttP f

AGENCY ANALYSIS

~~ThAgnyAayis S c inothsRprlokatteswrdipaabits

plnfrthe prenc nlsiServtion of this Reserve Fnlooks at theviwo sthewardsi cpblegiesla

tive, financial and enforcement abilities rounded out the picture.

SECTION'CONTENTS

AGENCY ANALYSIS

U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ............................................... 5

Proposals ........................................................ 5
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.~ ......................................... 6
Service Programs ....................................................... 7
The National Wildlife Refuge System ....... .............................16
Law Enforcement .........................................................21
Conclusions .............................................................21

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE .........................................................23

Proposals ...............................................................23
National Park Service ...................................................24
Preservation Objective .......... ........................................30
Conclusion ..............................................................30

VIRGINIA DIVISION OF PARKS (DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT) ............................................................33

Administrative Responsibilities and Activities ..........................33
Holdings in the Virginia Barrier Islands ................................36
State Division of Parks and the Virginia Coast Reserve............37
Conclusion ..................................................38

VIRGINIA COMMISSION OF GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES ...............................40

Administrative Responsibilities and Activities ...........................40
Holdings in the Virginia Barrier Islands ...............................42
Game and Inland Fisheries Commission and the Virginia Coast Reserve .....42
Conclusions ............................................................. 43

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM UNDER THE DIVISION OF STATE PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS .......................................................45

Administration...........45
Administration..... ............................................. 4
Coastal Zone Management Activities in Accomack and Northampton Counties.46
Conclusions ............................................................ 49

VIRGINIA COMMISSION OF OUTDOOR RECREATION ....................................51

Legal Authority andResponsibilities ....................................51
Implementation of the Virginia Outdoors Plan ............................52
The VirginiaOutdoors Plan 1974.........................................57
The Virginia Outdoors Plan and the Virginia Barrier Islands .............62
Conclusions .............................................................64

ACCOMACK AND NORTHAMPTON COUNTIES .............................................65

Proposals ................................................................65

*-3-

CONTENTS (Continued)

The Counties' Parks and Recreation Agencies .............................65
Accomack - Northampton Planning District Commission .....................68
Zoning Status of the Barrier Islands ............................. .......69
Condemnation Authority .................................................69
County Wetlands Boards ..................................................70
Conclusion ..............................................................70

THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ........................................................73

Background Information ............. ...... 73
Organization ............................................................74
History .................................................................74
Acquisition and Stewardship ............................................74
1980 Program ............................................................76
1982 Program ............................................................76
Virginia Coast Reserve Ownership Constraints ............................77
Management Considerations ...............................................78
Conclusions ..............................................................78

TABLES

Table 1, NWRS Growth, Funding and Public Use ............................ 8
Table 2, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Resource Management
Appropriation Crosswalk ............................................ 9
Table 3, Funds Available ................................................55
Table 4, Recent History of Conservancy Land Ownership ...................75

FIGURES

Figure 1, Migratory Bird Conservation Account-Location of High
Priority Land Acquisition Categories ...............................19

APPENDIX

Accomack-Northampton PDC Resolution .............................Appendix A
Reed Letter, January 19, 1976 .....................................Appendix B
Resolution Regarding Parramore Island as a National Seashore ... .Appendix C
Planning District Assessment Report ..............................Appendix D
Position Paper of PDC #22 .......................................Appendix E
Accomack County, A Five Year Park Development Plan ..............Appendix F
Charter Agreement of the Accomack-Northampton PDC ...............Appendix G
Preserve Endowments, The Nature Conservancy .....................Appendix H
Preserve Management Manual, The Nature Conservancy ..............Appendix I

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

PROPOSALS

Parramore Island, one of the largest and least disturbed islands of the chain,
has been discussed in conjunction with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in
a variety of circumstances. The earliest occasion appears to be a U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service biological reconnaissance study done on Parramore Island
to determine its potential and feasibility as a Wildlife Refuge. The study
is out of print and a copy was not obtainable, however the resulting conclu-
sions were favorable to pursuing the idea of preserving the area as a refuge.

The Accomack-Northampton Planning District Commission adopted a resolution
in February, 1975, requesting that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
the National Park Service establish a Wildlife Refuge and a National Seashore,
respectively, after the fashion of Assateague Island, which would be designed
to permit public recreation and yet protect valuable wildlife areas. (See
Appendices "A"'and "B").

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is specifically named in an agreement
accompanying the transfer deed from the original owners to The Nature Con-
servancy as one of two parties which the Conservancy must contact as a
possible transferee in the event that the Conservancy chooses to dispose
of Parramore. The other party is the Commonwealth of Virginia.

In addition to Parramore, other Virginia Barrier Islands have been mentioned
for consideration as Wildlife Refuges. A Bureau of Outdoor Recreation 1967-'68
nationwide study of islands recommended that marsh islands and areas in the
vicinity of Mockhorn Island State Wildlife Management Area "should be managed
for fish and wildlife values. The most appropriate agencies to administer
this resource are the State Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries and the
Commission of Fisheries, or at the Federal level the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife" (page V-21) (now the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). However,
the recommendation further stated that "The existing state ownership and
management of this area should be continued," that area already in -state
ownership should not be transferred to the Federal government. This recommen-
dation for the Mockhorn Island area did not include Smith Island which was
programmed for intensive private development at that time.

A second area of the island chain recommended for administration by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, among other agencies, because of its wildlife
resources, was the Fisherman's Island area which includes part of the Chesa-
peake Bay Bridge and Tunnel. This area was subsequently acquired by the
Fish and Wildlife Service and is currently being managed as a refuge.

General discussions about the Virginia Coast Reserve have been held with
Service personnel-on several occasions regarding the probable relationships
between Fish and Wildlife Service objectives and the stewardship of the Re-
serve. Several perspectives emerged from these discussions. One view is
that the total Nature Conservancy holdings represent an outstanding wildlife
resource area that is well qualified for inclusion in the National Wildlife
Refuge System and, hence, both islands and marsh should be a high priority
for Fish and Wildlife Service acquisition and management.

A second viewpoint gives a higher priority to the tidal marshes because of
their important direct relationship to fish, and wildlife resources rather-
than to the islands and attandant beachfronts. The latter often times haveI
a tendency to be associated with concentrated visitor non-wildlife-o-riented
recreational use. Moreover, public use on Service refuges, from a priority
standpoint, is secondary to resource-oriented activities by legislativeI
mandate.

A third viewpoint was that the Service would be particularly interested in
those islands providing significant black duck wintering habitats. AlthoughI
only limited studies have been conducted by the Fish and Wildlife Service,
information on. hand does indicate that important'black duck habitat exists
in the marshes adjacent to many of the islands.
II. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

A. Responsibilities

in a memorandum dated May 9, 1973, prepared by the Deputy of the Fish
anid Wildlife Service, the responsibilities of the Service were asI
follows, "The mission of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
is to assure maximum opportunity for the American people, consistent
with their needs and desires, to benefit from fish and wildlife resources I
as part of man's natural environment". The Fish and Wildlife Service
is responsible for Federal. programs relating to wild birds, mdmmals1/,
and sport fisheries. In the past, the Service exercised its respon-
sibilities mainly through the establishment and. maintenance of Wild-
life Refuges, of which there are currently 367 comprising about 33
million acres. The Service also controls 90 fish hatcheries which are
independent of the Refuge System. More recently, the Service has been
delegated major responsibilities for administration of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 by the Secretary of the Interior. The Fish and
Wildlife Service also maintains an Office of Biological Services forI
research into the principal environmental problems which the Service
will face in the next decade. These fall into three categories:
1) Aquatic Ecosystem; 2) Upland Ecosystem; and, 3) Inventory andI
Systems Development.

B. Objectives

The three basic objectives of the Fish -and Wildlife Service as stated
in the Department of the Interior Manual are:

1. To assist in the development and application of an environ-
mental stewardship ethic for our society, based on ecological
principles, scientific knowledge of fish and wildlife, and aI
sense of moral responsibility;

2. To assist and guide the conservation, development, and manage-
ment of the Nation's fish and .wildlife resources; and,I

I/The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, 16 USC 1361, specifies that the Fish
and Wildlife Service is responsible for marine mammals which frequent fresh
water and terrestrial habitats: manatees, dugongs, sea otters, walruses, andI
polar bears. According to the Act, whales, seals, and sea lions are the respon-
sibility of the National Marine Fisheries Service of the Department of Commerce.
-6- .

3. To assist in-the development of a national program to provide
the American public opportunities to understand, appreciate,
and use fish and wildlife resources. These objectives support
the Service mission of assuring maximum opportunity for the
American people, consistent with their needs and desires, to
benefit from fish and wildlife resources as part of man's
natural environment. (Chapter I, Part 142, 10/5/73, #1579).

C. Organization and Staff

The Service's complement of permanent, full-time employees is currently
4,214. This figure has remained relatively constant for the past five
years while during that same time period the number of National Wildlife
Refuge System staff decreased by 83, from a high of 901 to 818. (See
Table 1). This full-time staff is augmented by 700-900 temporary em-
ployees, many on the Refuges, during the busy summer season.

Although undergoing frequent internal organization modification, the
Service has always retained the traditional line staff concept. The
hierarchy is composed of a Washington 'office staff, 6 regional offices
and an Alaska area office. These offices are supported by approximately
430 field stations.

Ill. SERVICE PROGRAMS

The Fish and Wildlife Service seeks to accomplish its objectives through
various programs. In recent years several new programs or directions have
been added to the agency's responsibility by the Congress. Examples include
biological services, endangered species and marine mammals. The addition of
programs such as these have given the Service new capabilities to meet their
objectives, but have also caused changes in the relative priority of earlier
established programs within the Service. More programs presently share, and
to a degree compete, in the agency's budgetary process than was formerly the
case. This process involves the determination of which programs most effec-
tively and efficiently contribute towards the accomplishment of Service
objectives. A number of various legislatively mandated programs of the Fish
and Wildlife Service are described in the Legislative Compendium Volume of
this report. The 1976 and 1977 budget figures for both programs and acti-
vities is provided in Table 2.

The goals, objectives and budgets of eight Service Programs that have the
potential to have an impact on the stewardship of the Virginia Coast Reserve
are described below.

A. Animal Damage Control

1. Program Goals:

To manage wildlife populations for the protection, safety, and
economic resources of man in a manner which protects natural re-
sources, as well as man.

--7-

TABLE 1
1/
NWRS Growth, Funding and Public Use

1957-1976

P.F.T.M l~Res.. Mjlnt./ - s. tlnmt.j/ Construction Construction Z/ VISITOR tSE
Fiscal No. of2/ Refuge/ NoM. of/ WPA Y/ Field Field Deflated to Field Deflated to I ncrease
Year Refuqes Acres WPAs Acres MzrqO)w-r Ailocl tion '57 $ Value Allocation '57 $ Value No. Visits 8/ I.'rcn 195?

1976 Iin 24,905 2,343 25,600 3.4
1975 378 32,271 127 1,428 843 22,100 6,210 1,041 293 24,121 3.2
1974 368 32,070 116 1,371 283 20,002 7,049 967 339 21,538 2.9
1973 356 29,288 -114 1,303 887 17,808 8,423 2,376 1,124 19,588 2.6
1972 342 29,445 113 1,222 901 16,020 81 987 2,463 1,382 20,249 2.8
1971 331 29,205 113 1,128 83G 14,290 8,503 2,178 1,296 19, 2.5
1970 332 29,242 110 1,019 . 0 7,384 820 516 17,870 2.4
196(9 325 29,215 110 885 801 11,028 7,543 791 5411 16, 34.6 2.2
19c8 321 27,953 109 798 930 10.459 7,792 2,222 1, 15,221 2.0
1967 312 27,881 105 677 900 8,317 6,507 1 1,572 1.528 1.9
1966 303 28,398 97 529 778 8,924 7,336 2,650 2, 178 13,193 1.8
1963 297 28,344 88 353 757 8,722 7,466 l,46;3 1,257 12,9-6 1.7
1964 2OG 28,298 57 153 749 7,174 6,277 1,728 1,512 14,020 1.9
1963 284 28,556 34 G6 -
1957 270 18,000 - - 479 5, 3671/ 5,367 - 7,555

I/ Acres, dollars anl visits are in thousarrs (000).
2/ (J'cs not include Wildlife Coordination areas.
3/ Refers to the ntr-xIr of Camties in wh4ich WKiurfowl Production Zareas are located. First WPA's (20) establis~hd in 1961.
4/ rstiratxes for 1964-72 are derivcd by riutcirY4 total Wildlife R�Uuqe Division jxxrsonnel by 130 for RO and I-J,; this was
L-Ascyl cn kno.n differences of 130 in FY 1973. Estinute for P' 1957 was redua.2d by 100.
5/ 'ITtal Wildlife Rufucyo Division ftuids- allocation was assusm-d to be reduccd by 202 for FWS (WO, ID and AO) support.
6/ Irnclud>s mrinios set aside -Ix.cifically Lo all.ly to rehabilitation backlog: FY 1975=$1,175 million and FY 1976=$2,267 million.
7, Ir.f ;Ition rate is o Chanel on Uie 8tarc*.lu of I;drjr Statis;tics' C .ulrr Pio� ILdckx.
8/ vji.iw'!r u.r2 rlrojectcd at +1.5 million for VY 1976.
To tal1 Ft 1957 aj.~ropi'iation.

Provided thru the courtesy of the U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

-8-

1/
TABLE 2

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE February 12, 1976

Resource Management Appropriation Crosswalk
(in thousands of dollars)

Other
Animal Field Regional Wash-
Fish Tech. Law Ecol. Damage Fishely Wildlife Office Grants & & Area ington Program
Hatcheres Asat. Refues Enfor. Svcs. Control Research Research Operations Contracts Offices Office Totals b/
'76 '77 '76 77 '767 77 76 7'7 77 '76 '77 76 '7 '7 6 '77 76 77 '76 '77 '76 '77 '76 '77 '76 777 '76 '77

Emv.Coot.Evaluration 40 40 17 17 51 51 1,089 1,231 2,286 2,289 375 375 440 499 4,298 4,502

LandSW.es. Dtvel. 81 79 2 2 4,113 4,513 53 51 - 85 2,023 1,801 2.443 2,764 8,800 9,210

Biological Svcs. 25 25 1 1 11 11 378 418 50 137 273 292 1,476 1,476 2,840 4,443 952 1,048 1,937 2,108 7,943 9,959

Higracory Birds 141 141 16,986 16,718 3,629 3,629 2,731 2,724 1,674 1,674 2,352 2,286 4,774 5,266 32,287 32,438

tHammls&~on-m. Birds 48 48 2,749 2,544 1,433 1,433 13 13 1,842 1,695 131 131 1,079 1,800 1,203 1,319 6.498 8,963

Aanial D.Concrol 16 16 4,611 4,611 2,802 2,770 596 538 1,118 1,229 9,143 9,164

Coop. R&.lUniL 1,404 1,400 1,151 1,148 290 303 2,845 2,851

Coast.ABnd.Fish 2,458 2,458 270 270 50 50 1,070 1,070 1,985 843 843 810 884 7,486 5,575

Ct.Lakas Fish 561 .565 2,037 2,053 114 114 439 458 3,151 3,190

Inland Fishb Rea. 8,066 8,019 1,346 1,346 7 7 14 14 21 21 2,536 2,536 1,398 1,398 2,174 2,412 15,562 15,753

End.&Th.Specias 38 38 113 113 1,032 1,332 1,734 1,734 131 131 1,086 1,036 285 285 2,000 991 1,416 2,083 3,113 3,493 9,198

Int.Aueryeation 244 244 22 22 4,112 4,271 8 8 3 3 1,088 1,134 1,297 1,321 6,774 7,003

Exe.Dir.Planning 982 1,237 439 710 1,421 1,947

Admin. Support | 2,159 2,159 768 889 2,927 3,048

1 11,:,1.324 2,086 2,084 24,905 24,891 6,879 6,879 4,529 4,965 4,859 4.85 8,186 8,427 12,256 11,95413,569 3,56916,825 4,443 14,952 16,149 20,215 23,275 120,628 122,821

4/ Contains centrally paid expenses such as postage, communication costs, space costs, and pay act totalling $11,028 in FY 1976 and $12,767 in FY 1977.

b/ Individual FY 1977 program totals are higher than the President's Budget because increased pay and space costs have been distributed to program totals above.

1/ Taken from the Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Budget Summary- Fiscal Year 1977.

-9--

2. Program Objectives:

a. To develop methods and provide assistance to local, state, and
Federal'public health organizations to suppress wildlife-borne
diseases.

b. To develop methods and provide assistance to military and
civilian agencies to prevent bird-aircraft strikes.

c. To develop methods and provide assistance to protect the values
(aesthetic and economic) of public and private property in
residential, commercial, and industrial situations from damages
caused by wildlife, especially commensal rodents and birds.

d. To develop methods and provide assistance to protect agricultural,
forest, and range resources from damages caused by wildlife.

e. To develop methods and provide assistance to protect newly
introduced, seriously depressed, or endangered populations of
wildlife by reducing predation or competition where they are
limiting factors, and to protect desirable wildlife popula-
tions where there is evidence that predation or competition
is severely affecting the desired species.

f. To develop damage assessment methods and provide accurate
estimates on the extent of wildlife caused damage.

g. To develop new and improve existing population census and
indexing methods for predators and those wildlife species
that have potential for being detrimental to man's interest.

3. FY 1977 Budget: $9,194,000. Increase over 1976 $21,000. Per-
centage of total appropriated budget 19%.

B. Coastal Anadromous Fish Program

1. Program Goal:

To improve stocks of coastal anadromous fish species and their
habitats for the benefit of sport and related commercial fisheries.

2. Coastal Anadromous Fish Program Objectives:

a. To provide and preserve freshwater, estuarine, and marine
habitat in quantity and quality to produce anadromous fish
populations at levels adequate to preserve the resource.

b. To provide access that will permit use opportunity at a level
commensurate with the abundance and distribution of the resource.

c. To develop comprehensive plans on a state, regional, or water-
shed basis which satisfy management objectives, taking into
account multiple uses and stresses, and related natural resource
programs.

d. To provide fish passage and protection facilities and produce
and stock fish of the species required to maintain the fishery.

e. To assess needs for additional conservation, development, and
enhancement activities.

f. To overcome limiting factors of habitat destruction, obstacles
to movement, nutritionsdeficiencies and diseases of coastal
anadromous fish through research leading to solution of un-
favorable situations.

g. To join with the states in carrying out programs of the state,
regional, and national significance.

.. FY 1977 Budget: $5,575,000. Percentage of total appropriated
budget 5%. Decrease over 1976 $1,911,000.

C. Endangered Species

1. Program Goal:

To restore species and subspecies of vertebrates, mollusks, and
crustaceans which have been identified as being threatened with
extinction to the point at which they are once again viable com-
ponents of their ecosystems, and to prevent additional species
or subspecies from becoming endangered.

2. Endangered Species Program Objectives:

a. To develop a nationally coordinated endangered species program
by enlisting the aid and services of other Federal, state, and
private agencies and organizations in the implementation of
mutually developed endangered species recovery plans.

b. To conduct surveys to determine status of native and foreign
threatened species as well as programs confronting them.

c. To develop'and keep current a scientifically accurate endangered
species list, developed through consultation with individuals
throughout the world who are knowledgeable about the various
species, their'status and needs.

d. To develop and keep current a recovery plan for each threatened
native species. These plans will identify limiting factors,
propose corrective measures, make recommendations for land
acquisition, management of Service lands, and guide efforts to
restore individual threatened species.

e. To increase the scope and effectiveness of importation regula-
tions through increased enforcement in order to prevent the
United States from contributing to the diminution of foreign
animal resources.

f. To provide up-to-date information services on endangered species
to the public, news media, and educational organizations.

g. To help foreign countries resolve their own endangered species
problems by 1) expanding our program to train foreign nationals,
2) providing assistance in conducting surveys to determine the
status of foreign endangered species as well as the problems
confronting them, and 3) providing expert consultation services
to foreign countries requesting our assistance.

3. FY 1977 Budget: $9,198,000. Percentage of total appropriated
budget 7%. Decrease over 1976 $295,000.

D. Environmental Contamination Evaluation

1. Program Goals:

To develop a centralized national biological information gathering,
storing, and retrieval system that will establish sensitive moni-
toring systems for key species and environments; develop animal
population and/or habitat data on selected game and non-game
species; provide data essential to making biologically sound
planning and management decisions.

2. Program Objeetives:

a. To identify those fish and wildlife species that are recog-
nizable and reliable indicators of environmental conditions.

b. To identify and evaluate the various factors and influences
(including environmental pollution) which are affecting bio-
logical communities or a species.

c. To make available outputs of the Biological Monitoring program
for agencies involved in comprehensive planning and assessment
of land and water development projects.

d. To establish a national system for monitoring critical, threatened,
or remnant ecosystems, such as grassland types; desert faunas,
the Florida Everglades, major rivers, inland wetlands, estuarine
systems and others.

e. To consolidate on a continuing basis information concerning
the status, distribution, and abundance of selected game and
non-game species.

f. To make available to other Federal agencies and the states,
and the public, information of effects of fundamental changes
in the natural environment and the interrelationship between
human well-being and the welfare of fish and wildlife.

3. FY 1.977 Budget: $4,502,000. Percentage of total appropriated
budget 4%. Increase over 1976 $204,000.

-12-

E. Interpretation and Recreation

1. Program Goals:

The basic goal is to expand understanding and appreciation of
fish and wildlife, wildlands, ecology, and man's role in his
environment utilizing Service facilities and special competence
of its personnel.

2. Program Objectives:

a. To allow the use of Service lands for scientific studies by
colleges, universities, professional organizations, scientific
societies and individuals.

b. To make available environmental study areas on Service lands
for use by school groups and teachers (kindergarten through
12) to conduct studies to better understand fish, wildlife,
wildlands ecology and man's role in his environment.

c. To increase public opportunities for obtaining basic under-
standing of fish, wildlife and wildlands through improved
interpretive programs.

d. To improve the ability of people to better react to environ-
mental problems locally and nationally by providing through
specialized media information about fish and wildlife and its
relationship to man.

e. To provide fish and wildlife-oriented recreation activities
that are compatible with wildlife management programs.

f. To determine consumptive use and values of fish and wildlife
resources through research and surveys.

g. To improve the ability of other agencies in providing fish
and wildlife-oriented programs through technical assistance
activities.

3. FY 1977 Budget: $7,003,000. Percentage of total appropriated
budget 6%. Increase over 1976 $229,000.

F. Land and Water Resource Development

1. Program Goals:

In an era of increasing demands on a generally decreasing renewable
resource base, it is in the public interest to manage fish and wild-
life resources under the aegis of a comprehensive plan.

-13-

2. Program Objectives: (by sub-programs)

a. To participate directly in all levels and stages of interagency
basin planning efforts in order that fish and wildlife values
be given optimum consideration in decisions as to land and
water use.

b. To represent fish and wildlife interests in land and water use
decisions covering special areas and in special studies which
effect the rationale of use allocations.

c. To participate in efforts designed to identify and evaluate
in detail sufficient for legislative action, segments of land
and water habitat having certain unique qualities which dictate
that preservation in a near pristine state seems to be its
highest and best use.

d. To provide guidance and support to states in the development
of their long-range, comprehensive fish and wildlife manage-
ment plans and to coordinate activities associated with planning
to eliminate duplication of effort and to increase utility of
manpower.

3. FY 1977 Budget: $9,210,000. Percentage of total appropriated
budget 7%. Increase over 1976 $410,000.

G. Mammals and Non-Migratory Birds

1. Program Goals:

To insure that all mammals and non-migratory birds remain a viable
part of the natural ecosystem. In doing so we are assuring that
these animals are available to fill their natural function as well
as provide recreation for the Nation's people.

2. 'Program Objectives:

a. To acquire, through'research, the resource management infor-
mation needed to attain the program goal.

b. To manage Service lands, in:conjunction with other Service
program objectives so as to:

Demonstrate, through habitat manipulation and other manage-
ment techniques: how to retain native wildlife species, and
how to reconcile wildlife needs with human modifications of
traditional habitat.

Support wildlife populations representative of all major
vegetative associations.

-14-

Maintain an abundance and diversity of populations of resident
game and non-game species, compatible with carrying capacities
and other constraints, for the enjoyment of the people.

Maintain, at above minimum recovery levels, all native species
normally associated with the environments found in National
Wildlife Refuges.

c. To actively carry out Service mandates of recently-passed
marine mammal legislation.

d. To increase the quality, and availability, of professional
wildlife management advisory services as may be requested by
such organizations as Indian tribes and other government
agencies.

e. To protect national and international wildlife resources and
control human activities so as to insure the perpetuation of
these resources through an improved law enforcement program.

f. To coordinate mammal and non-migratory bird programs with
other government agencies to avoid duplication of effort.

g. To expand man's understanding and appreciation of wildlife,
wildlands, and his role in the environment.

3. FY 1977 Budget: $8,983,000. Percentage of total appropriated
budget 7%. Increase over 1976 $485,000.

H. Migratory Birds

1. Program Goals:

To maintain and increase migratory bird populations so they may
continue to provide recreational and educational benefits for
people.

2. Program Objectives:

a. To maintain migratory bird populations so that optimum numbers
are available for both consumptive and non-consumptive public
use.

b. To acquire, manage, restore and prevent or mitigate damage
to habitats so that the numbers of migratory birds are in-
creased and recreational opportunities are enhanced.

c. To avoid or correct situations where migratory birds are or
threaten to be detrimental to the public welfare or to the
resource.

d. To assure the perpetuation in a natural environment of each
migratory bird species with special emphasis on those that
are reduced or endangered.

e. To acquire and communicate information needed to increase
public understanding and appreciation of migratory birds
and their habitats.

f. To work closely with and support the responsible efforts of
other nations, states, public and private organizations; and,
individuals to maintain and enhance the migratory bird resource.

g. To safeguard the welfare of migratory game birds by careful
and responsible control of hunting mortality.

h. To minimize losses of migratory birds to disease, pollution
and other degrading influences.

i. To determine and maintain quality standards for all forms of
recreation related to the migratory bird resource.

j. To gain added knowledge about migratory birds and their
habitats so both may be better understood and managed.

3. FY 1977 Budget: $32,438,000. Percentage of total appropriated
budget 26%. Increase over 1976 $151,000.

IV. THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM

"National Wildlife Refuge System", according to the Code of Federal Regula-
tions:

....means all lands, waters, and interests therein administered by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as national wildlife refuges, wildlife
ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas,'waterfowl production
areas, and areas for the protection and conservation of fish and wild-
life, that are threatened with extinction. (Title 50, Chapter I,
Section 25.1).

The Refuge System contains 281 Waterfowl Migratory Bird Areas, 73 General
Migratory Bird Areas, 16 Big Game Areas, 4 National Game Ranges, 4. National
Wildlife Ranges, and numerous Waterfowl Production Areas in 116 counties in
the United States. The Fish and Wildlife Service also has obligations for
59 Wildlife Management Areas or Coordination Areas, under cooperative agree-
ments with federal and state agencies. During the last five years, 47 refuges
have been added to the system. (See Table 1). A number of the many laws
pertaining to the National Wildlife Refuge System are described in the Legis-
lative Compendium Volume of this report.

A. The Refuge Mission

The special mission of the Refuge System is to provide, manage and safe -
guard a national network of lands and waters sufficient in size, diversity
and location to meet people's needs for areas where the entire spectrum
of human benefits associated with wildlife, particularly migratory birds,
and wildlands are protected, enhanced and made available to the public
for observation and limited use.

-16-

The Code of Federal Regulations further elaborates on the purposes of
Refuges:

All Wildlife Refuge areas are maintained for the fundamental purpose
of developing a national program of wildlife conservation ard re-
habilitation. These areas are dedicated to wildlife found thereon
and for the restoration, preservation, development and management
of wildlife habitat; for the protection and preservation of endangered
or rare wildlife and their associated habitat; and, for the manage-
ment of wildlife; in order to obtain maximum production for perpetu-
ation, distribution, dispersal, and utilization. This subchapter
effectuates these primary objectives in accordance with the obliga-
tions of the United States under the treaties with Great Britain
and the United Mexican States, and allows public enjoyment of
wildlife refuge areas consistent with these objectives. (Title
50, Chapter I, Section 25.2).

B. 1985 Objectives of the National Wildlife Refuge System

The following objectives describe responsibilities of the National Wild-
life Refuge System. Based on 1974 budgetary levels of operations, asso-
ciated quantifiable goals are projected to 1985:

1. To preserve, restore and enhance in their natural ecosystems all
species of animals and plants that are endangered or threatened
with becoming endangered on lands of the National Wildlife Refuge
System. The annual goal is to provide 142 million use-days by
threatened and endangered species.

2. To perpetuate the migratory bird resource for the benefit of the
people. The current quantified goals on existing refuge lands
are:

--To produce 1.6 million waterfowl;

--To support 1.8 billion use-days by waterfowl; and,

--To sustain 4.2 million use-days by other specially recognized
migratory birds including hawks, owls, doves, marsh and water
birds and others.

3. To preserve natural diversity and abundance of mammals and non-
migratory birds on refuge land. Goals are to provide 10.8 million
use-days by 17 species of specially recognized mammals. (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife, Draft Environmental Statement, Operation of the Na-
tional Wildlife Refuge System, 1975, p. 1-3).

C. Budgetary and Management Considerations

I 1. Current Budget

Refuges are not a budget unit themselves under the Service's pro-
gram management budget system. Funding for refuges comes from
eight program areas. Table 2, the "crosswalk" table, breaks out
the funds from the program areas available to refuges. The proposed
FY 1977 figure for refuges totals $24,891,000 representing 20% of
the total appropriated budget and a $14,000 decrease from FY 1976

-17-

appropriated funding. The major allocation for refuges comes from
the migratory bird program with significant amounts from interpre-
tation and recreation, mammals and non-migratory birds, and en-
dangered and threatened species respectively.

As stated earlier, the Fish and Wildlife Service manages and budgets
by objectives. Therefore, by and large, that portion of the budget
being spent on refuges reflects the contributions of refuges towards
the achievement of the agency's program objectives. Individual units
within the Refuge System are also evaluated in budgetary consider-
ations as to their current or potential contributions towards the
agency goals and objectives.

In addition to appropriated funds which cover operations/maintenance,
rehabilitation, special studies, and salaries (as well as some acqui-
sitions), funds for land acquisition come from the Migratory Bird
Conservation Fund and the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Refuge
acquisition funds have averaged $19 million for the last 5 years
with a low of $15 million in FY 1975 and a high of $24 million in
FY 1976. Funding for FY 1977 is projected to be $20.5 million.

2. Funding Needs

There are several indices that suggest that the current level of
funding for the Refuge System is inadequate. Among these are:

--The backlog of rehabilitation needs on refuges is estimated
at $70.1 million.

--The backlog of acquisitions authorized by the Secretary of
the Interior, the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission or
by Congress at the end of FY 1976 were approximately $218
million.

--The Refuge System increased by 101 units and 6 million acres
in the last decade.

--To achieve the objective of producing 10 million annual
huntable waterfowl surpluses, the acquisition of 1.9 million
acres of key habitat, principally wetlands, will probably
be required in the next 15 years.

--The Refuge System decreased in permanent field positions
from 901 to 818 in the past five years.

--Funds available for refuge management and acquisition have
remained fixed for several years in an era of inflation and
rising additional costs.

D. Land Acquisition Priorities

The Fish and Wildlife Service FY 1977 budget justifications contains
at page 80 a map depicting the location of high priority land acqui-
sition categories. (See Figure 1). The area listed as number five
represents black duck habitat running from North Carolina to Massachusetts.

-18-

F IGURE I

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
* I ~~~MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION ACCOUNT
FIGURE 1I- LOCATION OF 111G1 PRIORITY LAND ACQUISITION CATAGORIES

I ~~~~14 14
15~~~ 3

6 IISIS'p JLYA
1.4~1 131 fgt. 5

6 '5:p:t: ~ t- ISSIP
U 6~~~~~ &;x~~~CETRAL ~ FLYWAY

WINERNGHABITAT

*~~~~ AIA CATEGORY PRIORITY

1/ U. S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Budj'et of
Justifications, F.Y. 1977., FWS 80.

* -~~~~~~~~~~19-

It is an objective of the Service to acquire 40,000 acres of unprotected
black duck habitat in this area which include the entire Virginia Barrier.
Island chain.

E. Management Leasing Agreements

rThe Fish and Wildlife Service is authorized by various statutes to
~establish refuges through acquisition by purchase, gift, condemnation
'(also referred to as "unwilling purchase"), and withdrawal of land from
!the public lands. The Service is also authorized to lease land for
wildlife management purposes under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
'Act of 1956, as amended. A number of lease agreements are currently in
leffect; the arrangements, the leasors, the type and size of the areas
'vary by agreement. Three leasing arrangements for marsh/wetland
management are offered by way of examples:

1. Wallops Island National Wildlife Refuge: 3,000 acres of marsh
and upland are being leased from NA.SA for migratory bird conser-
vation and are managed by the Chincoteague Refuge staff. The
lease was made in 1971 for five years.,

2. Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge: 143,000 acres of wetlands
are being leased from the Central and Southern Florida Flood
Control District for management of migratory birds, two endangered
species and limited waterfowl production. There is a staff of
nine full-time people. The lease runs for 50 years and contains
automatic renewal provisions. The Service has also purchased
2,500 acres of adjacent land.

3. San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge: 130 acres of marsh-
land and abandoned salt crystallizer ponds are being leased from
Mobil Oil Company for migratory bird and five endangered species
conservation. The lease is renewed on an annual basis. The
Service has plans to purchase 23,000 acres in the area and increase
its staff to 38 full-time people.

F. Existing National Refuges Near the Virginia Coast Reserve

There are at least seven National Wildlife Refuges in the vicinity of
the Conservancy!s holdings. Three, Chincoteague, Wallops, and Fisher-
man Island, are actually on barrier islands. All are primarily managed
for migratory birds. These are:

1. Chincoteague, Virginia: 9,439 acres, 9 full-time staff.

2. Fisherman Island, Virginia: 1,000 acres, managed by Back Bay staff.

3. Blackwater, Maryland: 11,216 acres, 8 full-time staff.

4. Back Bay, Virginia: 4,589 acres, 5 full-time staff.

5.' Plumb Tree Island, Virginia: 3,276 acres, managed by Back Bay staff.

6. Martin, Maryland: 4,423 acres, one full-time staff.

7. Wallops Island, Virginia: 3,000 acres, managed by Chincoteague
staff.

-20-

V. LAW ENFORCEMENT

The Fish and Wildlife Service promulgates and enforces regulations for the
protection of migratory birds, marine mammals, fish and other non-endangered
I ~ ~~wildlife And endangered species from illegal taking, transportation, or sale
within the United States or from foreign countries. As of 1976, the Service
had '85 field agents to enforce laws and regulations protecting wildlife.

~~I . V OdUION

The Fish and Wildlife Service has been traditionally viewed by The Nature
Conservancy as the agency in the Federal government that holds objectives
most closely aligned to those of the Conservancy. A long record of close
cooperation on land preservation projects attests to the relationship that
exists between the Conservancy and the Service. Examples include St. Vincent
Island, Florida, Wassaw Island, Georgia, Little Egg Harbor, New Jersey, Sevil-
leta, New Mexico, Great Dismal Swamp and Mason Neck, Virginia.

I ~~~The goals that the Fish and Wildlife Service have established for the National
Wildlife Refuge System include the preservation, restoration, and enhancement
in their natural ecosystems all species of animals and plants that are en-
' ~ ~~dangered or threatened on refuge lands, the perpetuation of the migratory
bird resource, and the preservation of natural diversity and abundance of
mammals and non-migratory birds on refuge lands. These goals closely match
those held by the Conservancy for the Virginia Coast Reserve.

While the objectives held by the Service for the Refuge System are excellent,
the priority attention that any individual refuge or potential refuge will
receive for acquisition and management funding will depend on the contributions
that refuge can make towards the overall objectives of the Service. There-
fore, consideration of an area like the Virginia Coast Reserve as a potential
refuge requires an evaluation of the attributes of the Reserve in terms of
Service objectives.

* ~~~The most obvious attribute of the Virginia Coast Reserve is the wetland
areas providing habitat for black ducks. As noted in the discussion of
acquisition priorities, -black duck habitat is a high priority category.
The significance the tidal marsh portion of the Reserve as wintering black
duck habitat was evid1enced in discussions with Service personnel.
The idea of the Fish and Wildlife Service managing the marshlands deserves
I . ~~serious consideration. Such an Arrangement would create an expanded Fish
and Wildlife presence in the Virginia Barrier Island chain. If an increased
role of the Service in the area also resulted in increased law enforcement
I ~ ~~capability this would be a significant plus to the protection of the resource.

Obviously, before such a dual management arrangement could be implemented
a number of important factors would have to be worked out. Among these
are the development of compatible management plans and programs for the
marshlands and islands and a plan and time table for the acquisition of
those marshlands in further need of proteuction.

* ~~~~~~~~~~~-21-

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

'PROPOSALS

A resolution requesting the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wild-
life Service to establish a National Seashore and a National Wildlife Refuge,
respec'tively, on Parramore Island was adopted in February, 1975, by the Acco-
mack-Northampton Planning District Commission. (See Appendix A). The
Planning District Commission and Board of Directors of the Eastern Shore of
Virginia Chamber of Commerce support the establishment of a National Seashore,
specifically, for the recreation values it would provide to area residents
and for the subsequent net economic gains which would alledgedly accrue from
the presence of additional visitors to the community. Speaking for the Na-
tional"Park Service; Assistant Secretary for Parks, Fish and Wildlife,
Nathanial P. Reed, stated in a January 19, 1976, letter to The Nature Con-
servancy:

"The Department (of the Interior) has no plans at this time for con-
sidering designation of Parramore Island as a National Seashore. Nor,
to the best of my knowledge, is there any State action underway to
accomplish this objective."

The Eastern Shore of Virginia Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors passed
its own resolution in October, 1974, calling for the Chamber to support efforts
to have Parramore Island made a National Seashore. The Board's resolution also
asked that The Nature Conservancy, which had purchased the island in mid-1973,
transfer ownership to the federal government so that the cost of establishing
a Seashore would be reduced. (See Appendix C).

The genesis of a recreation-oriented National Seashore is probably a study
conducted in 1955 by the National Park Service, A Report on the Seashore
Recreation Area Survey of the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. The Report's brief
reference to Parramore Island concludes with the "analysis":

It is one of the best remaining undeveloped areas along this section of
the Atlantic Coast, iWith important scenic and wildlife values, and would
make an excellent public seashore recreation area.

Other Barrier Islands surveyed (which are now in Conservancy ownership) were
eliminated as potential seashore recreation areas for varying reasons including
inaccessibility, erosion, natural resources limitations.

The Parramore National Seashore idea was later discussed in the Bureau of
Outdoor Recreation's Island Study: Virginia's Barrier Islands (1967-1968),
part of a nationwide study of islands. This report divides the island chain
into six units, but treats only one, unit 3, in any detail because the islands
included in that unit: Parramore, Hog, Cedar and Metomkin, are "especially
endowed" with outdoor recreation resources and "because the qualities of
Unit 3 are superlative and are judged to be nationally significant." (page
1-3). Four small portions of other landward islands were also included in
Unit 3 to be used for public facilities.

-23-

Proposed recreation activities included intensive beach use, camping and boat
access. The development'plan recommendation for this area reads:

The land and water resources of Unit 3 should be acquired by the federal
government and established as a National Island Recreation Area, or Sea-
shore, administered by the National Park Service. This unit meets the
primary criteria for designation as a National Recreation Area.

The recreation-focused report did acknowledge that tidal marsh, the most eco-
logically sensitive of the components of Unit 3 constitutes about 32% of the
unit, more than the more popular recreation-oriented components combined:
coastal beach - 13%, sand dunes - 11%, upland - 4% (surrounding water consti-
tutes 41%).

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

A. Overall Objectives

The Park Service's basic and long-range objectives have evolved through
its history of legislation. As stated in the Department of the Interior
Manual, the objectives are:

1. To provide for the highest quality of use and enjoyment of the
National Park System by increased millions of visitors in years
to come.

2. To conserve and manage for their highest purpose the natural,
historical, and recreational resources of the National Park
System.

3. To develop the National Park System through inclusion of addi-
tional areas of scenic, scientific, historical, and recreation
value to the Nation.

4. To communicate the cultural, inspirational, and recreational
significance of the American heritage as represented in the
National Park System.

5. To increase the effectiveness of the National Park Service as
a "people-serving" organization dedicated to park conservation,
historical preservation, and outdoor recreation.

(Chapter I, Part 145, 9/19/73, #1577).

B. Overall Responsibilities

In fulfillment of these objectives the National Park Service performs
the following functions:

1. Manages a National Park System composed of almost 300 natural,
historic, recreational, and cultural parks embracing 30.4
million acres in 48 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands,
together with the National Capital Park System of metropolitan
Washington, D. C.

-24-

2. Conducts National Survey of Historic Sites and Buildings, His-
toric American Buildings Survey, Historic American Engineering
Record Survey, nationwide archeological salvage program,
studies of prospective environmental education landmarks,
studies of natural and historical themes, studies of natural
and historic resources of the National Park System, and studies
-of historic Federal property declared surplus or proposed for
* / ~~~~~demolition.

3. Administers system of National Historic Landmarks, National
Natural Landmarks, and National Environmental Education Land-
marks

I 4. Maintains National Register of Historic Places and registers
of National Historic Landmarks, National Natural Landmarks,
National Environmental Education Landmarks, and Research Natural
Areas on Federal lands.l/

5. Provides matching grants-ina-aid to states and the National Trust
for Historic Preservation for historical surveys and plans and
for acquisition, restoration, and rehabilitation of historic
and cultural properties.
6. Provides technical and professional assistance to Federal,
state, and local governments, and to public and private owners
/ ~~of natural, cultural, and urban properties.

7. Through cooperative agreements, administers recreation on lands
under the jurisdiction of other Federal agencies.

8. Provides professional and administrative support to the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation; Advisory Board on National
Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings, and Monuments; National P'ark
Foundation; American Revolution Bicentennial Commission; and
I ~~~~~~more than 25 other national, regional, and park advisory boards.

(Chapter I, Park 145, 9119/73, #1577).

C. National Seashores

For the last decade the Park Service has employed three general catagories
I ~ ~~in looking at its diverse units. These are the natural, recreational and
historic catagories. Very recently the Park Service has attempted to
break away from strict labeling of a park unit by emphasizing that values
I ~~~in each of these catagories may exist in any given park unit, and that
areas containing these values be managed accordingly, even though they
were not the primary reasons for the establishment of the unit.

Thus, National Seashores, included in the recreation category, may be
managed: (1) to provide high quality outdoor recreational opportunities,
and (2) to preserve significant natural and historic resources.

I/The Park Service is responsible for only those Research Natural Areas which are
on Park Service lands.
* ~~~~~~~~~~-25-

Objectives of each National Seashore are included in the authorizing
legislation for each area. There are presently ten National Seashores.
Key passages from the ten establishing acts follow:

Cape Cod...In order that the seashore shall be permanently preserved
in its present state, no development or plan for the convenience of
visitors shall be undertaken therein which would be incompatible with
the preservation of the unique flora and fauna or the physiographic
conditions now prevailing or with the preservation of such historic
sites and structures as the Secretary may designate: Provided, that
the Secretary may provide for the public enjoyment and understanding
of the unique natural, historic, and scientific features of Cape Cod
within the seashore by establishing such trails, observation points,
and exhibits and providing such services as he may deem desirable
for such public enjoyment and understanding: Provided further, that
the Secretary may develop for appropriate public uses such portions
of the seashore as he deems especially adaptable for camping, swimming,
boating, sailing, hunting, fishing, the appreciation of historic
sites and structures and natural features of Cape Cod, and other
activities of similar nature.

Gulf Islands...to preserve for public use and enjoyment certain areas
possessing outstanding natural, historic, and recreational values.

Padre Islands... to save and preserve, for purposes of public recrea-
tion, benefit, and inspiration, a portion of the diminishing seashore
of United States that remains undeveloped.

Cape Lookout...to preserve for public use and enjoyment an area...
possessing outstanding natural and recreation values.

Cumberland Islands...to provide for public outdoor recreational
use and enjoyment of certain significant shoreline lands and waters
of the United States, and to preserve related scenic, scientific,
and historical values.

Assateague Island...for the purpose of protection and developing
Assateague Island...for public outdoor recreation use and enjoyment.

Canaveral...to preserve and protect the outstanding natural, scenic,
scientific, ecologic, and historic values of certain lands, shore-
line, and waters.. .and to provide for public outdoor recreation use
and enjoyment of same.

Point Reyes...to save and preserve, for purposes of public recreation,
benefit, and inspiration, a portion of the diminishing seashore of
the United States that remains undeveloped.

Cape Hatteras...Except for certain portions of the area, deemed to
be especially adaptable for recreational uses, particularly swimming,
boating, sailing, fishing, and other recreational activities of
similar nature, which shall be developed for such uses as needed,

-26-

the said area shall be permanently reserved as a primitive wilderness
and no development of the project or plan for the convenience of
visitors shall be undertaken which would be incompatible with the
preservation of the unique flora and fauna or the physiographic
conditions now prevailing in this area.

Fire Island...for the purpose of conserving and preserving for the
use of future generations certain relatively unspoiled and undeveloped
beaches, dunes, and other natural features.. .which possess high
values to the Nation as examples of unspoiled areas of great natural
beauty in close proximity to large concentrations of urban population.

The preceding excerpts from the establishing legislation of the ten National
Seashores indicate the difficult dichotomy of Park Service intensions:
providing outdoor recreation whiletpreserving outstanding natural (and
historical) values. Of the ten, it would appear that Fire Island and
Cape Hatteras are the Seashores on which Congress has put the greatest
stress on preservation of natural values. Fire Island, however, has long
existed in a heavily populated region with substantial inholdings on the
island itself, and it can be argued that the island has been used for
recreation purposes predating the establishment of the Seashore. The
enabling legislation permits the Secretary of the Interior to authorize
hunting, fishing and shellfishing. Cape Hatteras, a relatively remote
and unspoiled area, in these characteristics bearing resemblance to some
of the barrier islands,' is permitted by its authorizing act to accomodate
commercial fishing by residents of inholdings in the Seashore, and hunting
under the terms of the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

It is worth noting that whenever a park is established, by federal, state
or local authorities, but particularly the federal government, more
visitors are attracted by virtue of the official recognition of park
status. It follows that greater recreation use will be made of an official
park, and a greater risk of disturbance to the area's ecology is created.

The position of the National Park Service on the subject of a National
Seashore on Parramore Island was made clear by Nathanial P. Reed, Assis-
tant Secretary for Parks, Fish and Wildlife. In a January 19, 1976 letter
Mr. Reed stated:

"...The Department has no plans at this time for considering desig-
nation of Parramore Island as a National Seashore. Nor, to the
best of my knowledge, is there any State action underway to accom-
plish this objective."

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(See Appendix B for complete text of this letter).

D. Natural Area Versus Recreational Area Criteria

The following criteria draw distinctions between National Park Service
natural areas and recreational areas, as stated in the National Park
Service's 1975 Management Policies.

-27-

Natural Areas: Nationally significant areas are those which have excep-
tional values or qualities illustrating or interpreting the natural
themes of our Nation. Broadly stated, these are:

-Outstanding geological formations or features significantly
illustrating geologic processes and natural phenomena.

-Significant fossil evidence of the development of life on earth.

-An ecological community significantly illustrating characteristics
of a physiographic province or biome.3

-A habitat supporting a uniquely outstanding, highly concentrated,
rare, endangered, or relict flora or fauna.

-Examples of the scenic grandeur of our natural heritage.

National Recreation Areas: The following criteria are established for
the evaluation and selection of areas proposed for Congressional desig-
'nation as National Recreation areas in the National Park System. These
criteria modify those issued in the Recreation Advisory Council's Policy
Circular No. I of March 26, 1963. The following criteria are to be
applied to all proposals:

-National Recreation Areas should be spacious areas containing3
outstanding natural and/or historic features and providing
significant recreation opportunities.

-National Recreation Areas should be located and designed to
achieve comparatively heavy recreation use and should usually
be located where they can contribute significantly to the recre-
ation needs of urban populations.

-National Recreation Areas should provide recreation opportunities
significant enough to assure national, as well as regional, visi-

Th-cl of investment, development, and operational responsibility

should be sufficiently high to require either direct Federal in-
volvement or substantial Federal participation to assure optimum
public benefit.

-Within the National Recreation Area, outdoor recreation shall be
recognized as a primary management purpose; however, such manage-
ment shall be compatible with the protection of the natural andI
historic resources.

E. Budgetary and Management Considerations

National-Park Service acquisitions are funded by annual allocations
from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In recent years, Congres-

sionally authorized acquisitions 'have exceeded in dollar cost the amounts

-28-

provided through the Fund. At the end of FY 1975, the cost of all authorized
acquisitions to which the Park Service was obligated by Congressional
action was $572.6 million, while annual Fund allocations average between
$70 and $77 million. In FY 1974 an impoundment of certain funds by the
administration further reduced land acquisition spending. Furthermore,
some of the annual Fund money is earmarked by Congress for specific
projects. An amendment to increase the Fund to $1 billion has passed
the Senate and a similar bill to increase the Fund to $800 million is
before the House. If this amendment becomes law, it is likely to be
vetoed by the President even if passed by the Congress acquisition funds
for the National Park Service would be increased threefold.

In a recent surveylI by the National Parks and Conservation Association
(NPCA), and National Park Service officials, it was found that a "serious
deterioration of the resources, property, and administration of the Na-
tional Park System exists as the result of personnel ceilings and budgetary
restrictions." These same problems are also plaguing monuments. recreation
areas, and historic sites administered throughout the country by the
National Park Service. The survey further stated that, "At a time when
the National Park Service has to handle increasing numbers of visitors,
lands, and responsibilities, personnel restrictions even threaten to
close down some of the parks." So disturbing are the charges that a
Congressional sub-committee responded with an investigation of the
situation in December of 1975 and tentatively set other meetings for
early 1976.

Since 1960, visitors to the park lands have tripled, and since 1965 they
have doubled, jumping from 113.7 million to 228.9 million. The time
visitors are spending in the parks is longer as rising energy costs dis-
courage frequent camp site changes. One hundred new areas have been
added to the park system. And the National Park Service has assumed
responsibilities for administering job corps centers, controlling
pollution, complying with the National Environmental Policy Act, and
participating in Bicentennial programs. However, during the same 15
year period, permanent personnel has increased only 53 percent, from
about 4,700 to less than 7,200.

Even with some of the work contracted out to private firms and increasing
reliance on volunteers, the National Park Service has a tough time making
ends meet. "The fact is," Service Director Gary Everhardt explained to
the House Sub-committee on Conservation, Energy, and Natural Resources
on December 4, "the Park Service has a chronic case of growing pains
just at that point when our fiscal policy has prescribed belt tightening
as an appropriate remedy for an inflationary economy.

Moreover, the current Park Service positions on new entries to the Na-
tional Park System, ranging from urban parks and historic sites to tra-
ditional larger rural and scenic parks, reflects a reluctance to take

l/"Congress Investigates Deterioration of National Parks", Conservation News, Vol. 41,
No. 2, January 15, 1976, p. 8-10.

-29-

on added responsibilities in a time of rising overall management and
maintenance expenses compounded by heavy increases in both year-rouind
and' seasonal visitor uses of national parks,

Th~ Assistant Secretary for Parks, Fish and Wildlife, Nathanial P. Reed,3
has indicated that there are no current plans to look at any of the
idlands, in the Virginia barrier chain as potential National Seashore
sites. (See Appendix B )

III. PRESERVATION OBJECTIVE

The basic objective of the Conservancy's involvement in the Virginia Barrier3
Islands is to preserve the unique dynamic ecosystem which exists in its
relatively natural state. Each island is an important link within this
system.~ Parramore, the subject of the National Seashore and National Refuge3
resolution by the local counties' Planning District Commission, is one of
the largest and least manipulated of the islands, and is located in the
middle of the chain. It is particularly important to the preservation of
the ecosystem.
By Park Service National Seashore objectives and criteria for National
Recreation Areas, the establishment of such a park unit would substantiallyI
alter portions of Parramore Island and impact on other parts-of the island
and the area. Parramore is now accessible only by boat. Construction of
roads from the mainland to the island and on the island would multiply the
long-term impact, not only to the immediate area, but to the ecosystem.
The visitor impact and recreation uses, the construction of needed facilities
for visitors and Park Service maintenance would all contribute to ecological
degradation, and unique natural resources would inevitably be lost.
IV. CONCLUSION .. ~

The suggestion by local authorities that a National Seashore be established
on Parramore Island by the. National Park Service is not a feasible alternative
at this time. The Conservancy's preservation objective for Parramore Island f
is not compatible-with the National Park Service's recreation-oriented criteria U
and objectives for National Seashores. Furthermore, the Department of the
Interior, National Park Service, has expressed no interest in the establish-
ment of a National Seashore on Parramore Island. In addition, the Conser-
vancy's own recreational analysis in the Social and Economic Analysis Section
of the Virginia Coast Reserve Study demonstrates no additional need for
another National Seashore facility along the Atlantic Coast.
Should the Conservancy attempt to seriously explore this option, however,
it is encumbered by certain restrictions agreed to between the Conservancy
and the original owner in an agreement accompanying the deed which the
Conservancy is obliged to honor. Among these restrictions, the Conservancy
has agreed to first consider as possible transferees the Commonwealth of
Virginia~and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, the seller
has retained specific use rights listed in the agreement for a period of
not to exceed 20 years from the date of conveyance to the Conservancy (June
27, 1973), which are non-assignable and non-transferrable except by the1
seller or his trustee.

-30-

I
I ~At this time, any stewardship arrangement with the National Park Service is
unlikely. It is conceivable that at some time after the privately held use
rights expire an agreement could be reached with the National Park Service.
A Park Service managed area that was also a wilderness area would most likely
meet Conservancy objectives.

:I
; t

.... ]

!
I

II
-I

* ~~~~~~~~~-31-

VIRGINIA DIVISION OF PARK~S (DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT)

I. ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES AND ACTIVITIES

I ~ ~~A. General

(The following information was taken from Mission, Objectives and Goals,
3 ~~~~Division of State Parks, p. 4.)

~I'he mission of the Division of State Parks is to protect significant
State -natural resources and to provide opportunities for outdoor recrea-'
Lion to meet the needs of the Commonwealth of Virginia consistent with
the standards defined by the Virginia Outdoors Plan.

3 ~~~~The first objective listed under this mission is-

The acquisition of Natural Areas which preserve and protect sites
of unique scenic value and lands suitable for the development of
a wide range of recreational activities, utilizing the State's
inherent natural resources. Also the acquisition and/or management
of lands or waters upon which exist opportunities for specialized
recreation, education or preservation.
5 ~~~~The following are methods of accomplishing this mission:

1. Locate and describe all such areas.

3 ~~~~~2. Establish priorities in terms of importance and danger of
destruction.

1 ~~~~~3. Estimate cost and project future budget requests.
4. Acquire when funds are available.

1 ~~~~~5. Prepare plans for preservation and development.

6. Develop sufficient facilities for public use and enjoyment.

Preservation of the State's resources is inherent in the establishment
of the Division's control over any land. However, the lands used for
State parks do not require as high a landscape quality as natural, his-
toric or specialized areas. Likewise in planning for these areas, they
do not require as rigid environmental land management controls.

I ~~~~(The following information was taken from Organization, Duties and
Objectives, Department of Conservation and Economic Development, 1972,
pp. 31-32.)

The Virginia State Park System was authorized in 1926 by an Act of the
General Assembly which provided for the acquisition, preservation,
development and maintenance of areas, properties, lands or estates of
scenic beauty, recreational utility, historical interest, remarkable
phenomena or other unusual features.

* ~~~~~~~~~~~-33-

In keeping with the General Assembly Acts which authorize the establish-
ment and growth of the State Park System, the primary purpose of the
Division of Parks is to serve the people of Virginia by:
1. Establishing and operating State Parks that provide recreational
use of natural resources and outdoor recreation in naturalI

2. Portraying and interpreting plant and animal life, geology,
and all-other natural features and processes included in theI
various State Parks.

3. Preserving and protecting natural Areas of un ique or exceptional
scenic value not only for the inspiration and benefit of the
present generation, but also for generations to come.

4. Preserving, protecting and portraying historic and scientific
sites of Statewide importance.

The Division of Parks operates thirteen State Parks, three recreationalI
areas, four historic sites, and a museum. It also preserves six natural
areas. 5

Property for four additional parks has been acquired at False Cape in
Virginia Beach, Mason Neck in Fairfax County, Smith Mountain Lake in
Bedford County, and York River in James City County. These parks willI
be developed as funds become available.

B. Natural Areas5

The 6 areas comprising 4,900 acres which the Division of Parks is respon-
sible for preserving are the Charles C. Steirly heron rookery in Sussex -3
County, Goshen Pass in Rockbridge County, Lick Creek in Smyth and Bland
Counties, Parkers Marsh in Accomack County, Wreck and Bone Island in
Northampton County, and the Seashore Natural Area State Park at Virginia
Beach,
(The following was taken from an unpublished Division of Parks infor-
mation sheet entitled "Natural Areas Sys tem of Virginia".)3

Qualifications for Natural Areas:

To warrant inclusion in the System, a natural area must possesI
uniqueness of an (1) aesthetic, (2) topographical, or (3) biolo-
gical nature.

Insofar as is compatible with these principles, the selection of
individual areas must be governed by an ultimate intention that
the System be dispersed throughout the State, while avoiding
adjacency to great recreational lands presently in public owner-
ship.

However, no area is to be included in this System, if such inclusion1
would effect a significant economic hardship upon the economy of either
its immediate neighborhood or of a State-wide industry.

-34-

Standards for the Maintenance of Natural Areas:

1. All maintenance will seek to preserve the land in its natural
condition.

2. Paths will be opened in a manner compatible with this basic
principle of maintenance.

3. No buildings of any sort will be erected except for those re-
quired for minimum maintenance, and these will be located and
built in as inconspicuous a fashion as possible.

4. No roads will be preserved or opened except as required for
fire protection and other aspects of minimum maintenance.

5. No private motor vehicles will be allowed beyond border parking
areas.

6. No hunting or trapping by any means whatever will be allowed.

7. No camping will be allowed except as may be required for
scientific purposes, and then only by special permit.

8. No competitive, organized or team sports will be permitted.

9. No timber will be cut and no wood products gathered, except
for measures of disease prevention or eradication in instances
of extreme emergency.

10. No agricultural operations of any sort will be permitted.

11. Measures may be taken for the care and feeding of wildlife,
without upsetting the ecological balances, as long as the.
measures are not in conflict with the-above principle of
natural preservation.

The Natural Areas System is to be operated as part of the Division of
Parks, but held distinctly and completely separate in function from the
parks themselves. The reasons for this are:

1. All people benefit from...the basic, elemental pleasures that
are provided only by large areas of land preserved in a natural
or wilderness condition.

2. The continuing growth of the population...

3. ...creative work in all the biological sciences requires fre-
quent field study in natural areas where the delicate ecological
balances of nature have not been disturbed by man.

4. Neither private enterprise nor the private landowner can be
expected to provide and maintain properly these wilderness
areas...

5. ...Public parks and forests...do not include certain rare types
of landscape, biological study areas and choice spots of unsur-
passed beauty that deserve perpetual preservation-.

-35-

originally the thought was that naturalI areas were "...intended to serve
as little museums of nature where scientific research may be pursued, or
where hikers and nature lovers may find passive recreation and relaxation
in an atmosphere of undisturbed beauty."' (Organization, Duties and1
Objectives, p. 32.) According to the Parks Division Director, Ben H.
Bolen, thinking on the Natural Areas System has shifted to acquisition
of larger areas which better sustain the uses for which they are established
Furthermore, according to Mr. Bolen, all Virginia parks are looked on by
the Division as natural areas to some degree. Hence, a confusion in
terminology arises between old and current Division of Parks literature.
There is a total of 32 units in the park system: 22 parks comprising
about 42,000 acres, 6 natural areas with 4,900 acres, and historic areas I
with little acreage. The Parks Division operations budget for FY 1975
was $1,741,000, the acquisition budget for the biennium FY 1974-1976 is
about $1,000,000. The Division has a staff of 30 in Richmond, 150I
park rangers around the state year-round, and a summer staff of about
250 in the parks.

II. HOLDINGS IN THE VIRGINIA BAR~RIER ISLANDSI

Wreck Island in Northampton County is owned and managed by the Division of
Parks as a state natural area. Restrictions in the deed transferring the
island from private ownership to the state provide for its natural area
status. The deed states that:

.the premises herein conveyed shall be maintained in their natural
state and operated as a sanctuary for the maintenance of wildlife and
its natural habitat undisturbed by hunting, trapping and other activities
adversely affecting the wildlife. The' use and development of the premisesU
for public use and enjoyment shall not be considered to be a violation
of the above restriction provided such use is limited to activities
which would not adversely effect the environment or the wildlife popu-
lation and provided such use is not inconsistent with the maintenance
of the premises as a sanctuary as above outlined. Should the premises
or any part thereof cease to be so used, as herein defined and set forth,3
then the title of the said party of the second part shall cease and-
determine and shall revert to and vest in the party of the first part,
its successors and assigns, the said reversion and vesting to be auto-
matic and not requiring any re-entry."

Wreck Island is managed by a Division of Parks; employee, stationed at Seashore
State Park in Virginia Beach, who also operates Parkers Marsh Natural Area
in Accomack County. It is periodically looked over by a local warden of the
Came and Inland Fisheries Commission.

Recently impetus for a state park on the peninsula mainland has come from*
Accomack and Northampton Counties. In response to this, Cape Charles Park
Area was established and the State is currently giving high priority to
acquisition plans for Butler's Bluff for park purposes. Both sites are
located on the Chesapeake Bay in the southern portion of Northampton County
and provide beach access.

-36-1

I .~III. STATE DIVISION OF PARKS AND THE VIRGINIA, COAST RESERVE

Conservancy representatives Ray Culter and Susan Lukowski had a meeting with
* ~~~Parks Division Director Ben H. Bolen on January 27, 1976, to discuss the
3 ~~alternatives for cooperation between the Conservancy and the Parks Division
* ~~~in the Virginia Coast Reserve. The following information resulted from that
meeting.

I ~~~The V3!'rginia -State Division of Parks has demonstrated a concern for the pres-
ervation of natural areas in its acquisition and management policies. Reflecting
this attitude, Mr. Bolen stated several times that he has long been concerned
1 ~ ~that the barrier islands be preserved and that he considers the Virginia Coast
Reserve islands managed for preservation under the C osrac's ownership.
He added that a state park could not be maintained in the islands without
I ~ ~disruption to the environment and therefore stated that such a move "was not
a reality." However, he did not entirely rule out the possibility that the
Division could become involved in some way in the Coast Reserve.
On that subject, Bolen pointed out that an outright gift to the state would
be the most acceptable type of transfer. He expressed interest in both up-
land and marshland. The Division can accept deed restrictions in a gift or
I ~ ~purchase. In the event that the Conservancy should offer a part or all of
its holdings to the Parks Division, the next session of the General Assembly
would have to appropriate management funds before the gift could be accepted.

The Division's management policies for the State's Natural Areas System
appear to be compatible with many of the deed restrictions likely to be
included i~n a land transaction with the Conservancy. For example, the
Director of the Parks Division is empowered to close park and natural areas
at his discretion in order to insure their preservation.

I ~~Mr. Bolen added that the 1973 negotiations for the sale of some of the Con-
servancy's island holdings to the state had gone as far as the drawing up
of a deed for sale at fair market value. Despite the earlier Board of Parks
I ~ ~Commissioners approval of this purchase, negotiations fell through because
he personally felt that there were too many deed restrictions involved.
Furthermore, a reverter clause (one which was included in the 1973 draft
3 ~~~deed) may or may not be acceptable to the state, depending on the conditions.
Such a clause was accepted in the 1961. deed transferring Wreck Island from
private ownership to the Parks Di-vision.

State purchase of all or part of the Conservancy's holdings appears unlikely,
but ultimately the Virginia Legislature would make that decision in the form
I ~ ~of acquisition appropriations. Both management and acquisition funds must
be approved by the Senate Finance Committee and the House Appropriations
Committee. Previous negotiations in 1973 between the Division of Parks
and the Conservancy on the sale of islands in Conservancy ownership at that
time led to an estimate of annual management costs of $100,000 by the Parks
Division.

I ~~~~~~~~~~-37-

A joint management arrangement or a lease agreement are also possibilities;
the Parks Division has Authorization to enter into both, and is currently
leasing land for park purposes from the federal government. Either arrange-
ment may be worked out for one area or the entire Coast Reserve.3

The Division of Parks Board members, however, must approve a purchase, gift,
lease, or cooperative management agreement, and the Legislature must appro-
priate not only acquisition, but also management funds for any type of
arrangement, otherwise the agreement -cannot be acted on.
The Parks Division also has the power of eminent domain. Despite local
opposition, the Division recently condemned 4,200 acres for a state parkI

Mr. Bolen expressed interest in reviewing the results of the Virginia Coast
Reserve Study before giving further consideration to possible Parks Division
involvement in the Conservancy's holdings.

IV. CONCLUSIONI

The objectives of the Natural Areas System of the Division of Parks seem
to be compatible with the preservation of the Virginia Coast Reserve.I
However, it is unlikely that the Division of Parks would request state
appropriations for the acquisition of all or portions of the Coast Reserve
as a component of the Natural Areas System. It is the Commissioner'sI
belief that the area is already afforded maximum protection under Conser-
vancy ownership and that there is little need for the state to spend its
limited resources on the acquisition and/or management of this area.3

-3p,-~~

VIRGINIA COMmISSION OF GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES

ADMINISTRATIVE-RESPONSIBILITIES AND ACTIVITIES

A. General

(Taken from the Virginia Outdoors Plan, 1974, Commission of Outdoor
Recreation, p. 67.)

The Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries has statutory responsibility
for the management of the State's wildlife and inland fishery resources.
It also administers the State's motorboat and watercraft safety laws,
which delegate to the Commission regulatory and police powers over the
use of the State's recreational boating resources.

The Game Commission is responsible for the provision of public fishing
lakes, public boating and fishing access areas, trout streams, wildlife
-management areas, refuges and fish hatcheries. In 1976, it owned 170,500
acres for game and fish management and public water access areas. This
includes over 166,000 acres for hunting, 4,500 acres of public fishing
lakes and 134 public water access areas
In addition to the areas owned by this agency, it also manages 790 acres
of fishing lakes, stocks 600 miles of fishing streams and cooperates in
the management of wildlife resources on 1,900,210 acres of hunting land
owned by the State Division of Forestry, U.S. Forest Service, Depart-
ment of Defense and private individuals. In summary, the Commission
of Game and Inland Fisheries provides' over 2,066,000 acres in public
hunting and fishing for Virginia's citizens and visitors.
In addition to-its responsibility for regulating the recreational use of
wildlife and inland fishery resources, the Commission exercises broad
statutory authority to do such other things as it may deem advisable to
conserve, protect and replenish the supply of game birds, mammals and
fish, including the introduction of exotic species; and the Commission
is vested with specific authority to take positive steps to provide
opportunities for recreational use of fish and wildlife resources by
acquiring and developing lands and waters for public shooting and fishing.
The following programs illustrate such positive steps to provide these
opportunities on.State-owned property:

1.' The Public Fishing and Boating Access Development Program
promotes and expands public fishing and boating facilities in
Virginia. Typical development of approved public fishing and
boating access areas includes a parking area and a launching
ramp to the water.

2. The Public Lake Development Program promotes and expands public
lake facilities in Virginia. The Commission develops public
fishing lakes, manages impounded public waters, and stocks
freshwater fish in the public waters of the State. Typical
facilities provided at a public lake development site include
boat launching ramps, parking areas, sanitary facilities and
a concession stand.

3. Through the Game Management-Assistance Program, the Game Commis-
sion helps citizens develop proper techniques in the management

40-

of upland game on private lands. Upon request, technical. assis-
tance is provided for private landowners in preparing management
plans. Any landowner can be shown improvements for his land so
as to virtually guarantee the annual production of harvestable
supply of game. Any Virginia landowner interested in game
management may receive technical assistance as well as free
wildlife foods and cover planting materials under this aid
program.
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
'?The Commission has authority to protect non-game and endangered species
as well as game species, which it does by enforcing State laws which
prohibit the: hunting or taking of all species, other than those class-
ed by law as nuisance species, on which legal hunting and trapping
seasons are not provided. The Commission has not accquired lands
for the specific purpose of preserving or improving habitat for
non-game species, but feels that its habitat protection and manipu-
lation on the public hunting areas it manages and on its waterfowl
refuges benefit non-game as well as game species of wildlife. The
Commission accquires lands primarily for the purpose of producing
sustained annual yields of harvestable wildlife, and opens such lands
to hunting except in cases in which a refuge is maintained to attract
and hold a huntable local population of migratory birds which provide
improved hunting in surrounding areas."

The Commission staff currently numbers-about 320 employees; 45 people
work in the state capital, approximately 175 personnel with law enforce-
ment authority around the state.

B. Acquisition and Leasing

The Commission feels that it has an adequate representation of hunting
areas in the state. Therefore, acquisition of land adjacent to already
existing state game and fish areas has priority over acquisition of new
areas, according to Director Chester Phelps. Acquisition and management
funds are primarily generated from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses.
Annual revenues amount to about $10 million. Smaller amounts of federal
assistance come from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for acquisition
and development of additional recreation-related lands in conjunction
with the Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation, and from the Dingle-
Johnson and Pittman-Robertson Acts administered by the U.S. Fish and Wild-
life Service for acquisition, development, maintenance, and research in
state fish and game areas. Additions to Commission holdings must be
approved by the Commissioners, an independent 10 member board, and by
the Governor.

The Commission is authorized to accept deed restrictions with both gifts
and purchases. However, in a January 27, 1976, interview with Mr. Phelps
and several other administrative officials, Conservancy representatives
Ray Culterrand Susan L-ukowski were made aware of the Commission's reluctance
to receive or purchase lands so encumbered, particularly where there are
restrictions on hunting.

Unlike the State Division of Parks, the Game and Inland Fisheries Commis-
sion does not have the power of eminent domain. It does, however, have
the authority to enter into lease and cooperative management agreements
with state and federal agencies'and private parties. As of February,
1975, the Commission had cooperative management agreements involving
1,900,210 acres of land in other ownership. This substantially augments
the 166,000 acres of land owned by the Commission for hunting purposes.
-41-

On the subject of the barrier islands, Commission officials at the
January, 1976, meeting expressed interest primarily, in the wetlands.
However, Mr. James Mclnteer, Assistant Executive Director, appeared
to be speaking for other officers present in the interview when he-
stated that much of the wetlands were already adequately protected by the
state's wetland legislation and therefore, the Commission assigns a
somewhat lower priority to the acquisition and management of such areas
than they formerly did.
II. HOLDINGS IN THE VIRGINIA BARRIER ISLANDS

Mockhorn Island in Northampton County is currently the Commission's onlyI
holding in the area. It is a large island, mostly marshland, near the
southernmost tip of the chain. The two state employees who oversee the
island are a manager stationed at another refuge and a local warden whoI
patrol the area by plane and boat about once a month. There is no intensive
public use. A 2,500 acre portion of the island is managed as a refuge where
no hunting is permitted; the remaining 6,610 acres are open to seasonalI
hunting.

The Executive Director of the Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries,
Chester Phelps, responded to a request for information from the ConservancyI
regarding the Commission's current and projected activities and interests in
.the barrier islands. The following paragraphs are excerpts of the September
2, 1975, response by Mr. Phelps:
"The Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries' land acquisition program
is oriented toward the establishment and development of wildlife manage_
ment areas, which serve primarily as either waterfowl refuges or public
hunting areas, and sometimes a little of both. At present we do not
have plans to acquire additional such areas in the Virginia Barrier
Islands. Our present interest in the Barrier Islands is confined to
the continued management of Mockhorn Island, primarily as breeding
habitat and a public hunting area for clapper rails.3

Our law enforcement capability on the Barrier Islands is limited, as
our resident law enforcement force for the entire Eastern Shore of
Virginia normally consists of two game wardens. In special situationsI
this capability can be reinforced temporarily.

We have no specific plans at this time for establishing boating facili-
ties on any of the Barrier Islands, but if any of these islands wereI
owned by The Nature Conservancy or a public land management agency such
as the Virginia Division of Parks, and if additional public boating
access were deemed desirable, the Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries I
would be in a position at least to consider providing some limited
facilities for boaters."

1II. GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES COMMISSION AND THE VIRGINIA COAST RESERVEI

From the tenor of the January meeting between Mr. Phelps, several adminis-
trative officers of the Commission, and Ray Culter and Susan Lukowski of
the Conservancy, it is clear that the Commission does not assign a high
priority to the purchase of additional areas- in the barrier islands, although
a gift might be considered.

-42-1

*The subject of cooperative management and leasing did arous'e mutual interest.
Such arrangements provide the Commission with ten times the amount of land
then it actually owns, and agreements can be made with private parties.
I ~ ~~Should the Conservancy determine that some of its island holdings could
withstand seasonal hunting activities, a cooperative management agreement
3 ~~with the Commission could add to the protection afforded both in season and
'Out. Cooperative agreements do not need the approval of'the Commissioners
or the Governor. A lease arrangement should only be considered if the
Commission agrees to add additional law enforcement personnel to the area
3 ~~during the hunting season.

IV. CONSCLUS IONS

I ~~The primary thrust of the Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries
land acquisition program has been to provide hunting and fishing opportunities
to the people in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Commission is the only
I ~ ~state agency charged with the responsibility of protecting and managing the
Commonwealth's non-game species, however, to date no areas have been acquired
specifically for this purpose. The Commission does, however, take into con-
sideration the protection of non-game species in the management of state
hunting and fishing areas. Since important objectives for the preservation
of the Virginia Coast Reserve include immediate habitat management for n.on-
game species, overall Conservancy goals and objectives could not be met, at
I ~ ~this time, by vesting ownership of all or a part of the system in the Commis-
sion of Game and Inland Fisheries unless a major reorientation of their
present program were undertaken. This is not likely to occur in the near
future.

The Virginia Barrier Islands have traditionally provided hunting and fishing
opportunities for residents of the Eastern Shore. Carefully supervised and
managed hunting and fishing on portions of the Virginia Coast Reserve may be
compatible with, or even necessary, to maintain the natural ecosystems. It
may be desirable, at some future date, to enter into a cooperative management

or lease agreement with the state to facilitate these activities.

I~~~~~~~~~~~-3

COASTATL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM UNDER THE DIVISION OF STATE

I ~~~~~~~~PLANNING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

I. ADMINISTRATION
A., The Coastal Zon~e Management Act
I ~ ~~~The federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 was established to
"preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance
the resources of the Nation's coastal. zone", by encouraging and ass-is-
I ~ ~~~ting states to exercise their responsibilities in the coastal zone through
the development and implementation of management programs to achieve wise
use of land and water resources. State and local governments and regional
agencies are called upon to cooperate in the development of each state's
plans. The law requires public participation in the development and
implementation of each coastal zone program. There are two types of
I ~ ~~~grants offered under the law: a grant for planning and management acti-
vities authorized by section 305, and a grant for implementation authorized
by section 306. (For further discussion of the federal legislation,
3 ~~~~see the Legislative Compendium portion of this study).

B. Virginia's Coastal Zone Program

I ~~~~Virginia's Coastal Zone program is being coordinated and administered
at the state level by the Division of State Planning and Community
Affairs. It has a staff of 12. Virginia is at the end of its first
I ~ ~~~year of a 305 planning/management grant. The state submitted its
application for the grant in May, 1974, and it was approved on August
1, 1974. Normally, the termination date for the first year would be on
July 1, 1975, but the state requested an extension until October 31,
1975.
Virginia has elected to apply for three annual 305 grants (the current
1 ~ ~~~maximum provided by the Act) which are not automatic. Each annual
request must be submitted and approved by the Office of Coastal Zone
Management. The application for the second year of the 305 grant was
U ~ ~~~held up by the federal Office of Coastal Zone Management on technicalities
until early 1976. Funding for the first year totaled $376,655; $251,044
was provided by the Office of Coastal Zone Management and $125,522 by
the state. Second year funding totaled $403,520; $269,012 was the
federal share and $134,560 was contributed by the state.
During the first year activity has focused on data collection and issue
I ~ ~~~identification. The decision to extend planning over a three year
period has slowed the state's substantive planning efforts. During
the second year, the Division of State Planning and Community Affairs
I ~ ~~~plans to focus on the development of management requirements and public
participation and discussion on the issues identified. According to
the Division, the state will structure and fund regional or county-wide
* ~~~~workshops as one vehicle for public input.

The data collection effort for the first two years has been partly dele-
gated to the Virginia Institute of Marine Science which is developing
I ~ ~~~tidal marsh inventories and shoreline situation reports for all the
counties in the tidewater area. The projected completion date is mid-
1977 for both complete gets, however, the Northampton Shoreline Situation
-4.5-

Report is available for distribution, and the one for Accomack will be
printed this spring. The tidal marsh inventories for these two counties
are in various stages of development. At least one-half of the state'sI
coastal zone management budget for 1975 went into the effort to produce
these reports. The Virginia Institute of Marine Science received a
contract for $196,984 to serve as a technical advisor to the state andI
to compile the inventories and reports.

II. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES IN ACCOMACK AND NORTHAMPTON COUNTIES

The nine state planning district commissions in the Virginia coastal zone
formed regional advisory committees during the first year of the 305 grant.
The Accomack-Northampton Planning District Commission(PDC'22), elected toI
become the regional advisory body for the two county..area, and unlike the
other eight planning districts did not name other members of the community
to sit in an advisory capacity.-
The Accomack-Northampton Coastal Zone Advisory Committee worked with Ms. Stewart
Gamage, a staff member of the State Planning Division, in developing a position
paper for that region which was completed in draft form in September, 1975.
The paper, Coastal Zone Regional Assessment Report, is Appendix D of this
portion of the study. The counties' advisory committee, however, also sub-
mitted its own draft which it felt more adequately reflected its position
on the issues. That paper, On The Future of Coastal Zone Management Programs
of the State of Virginia, completed in August, 1975, is Appendix E . The
differences in wording are worth pointing out on several of the issuesI
covered in these two versions. The following are excerpts:

General Concern (Planning_District' s Position Paper)I

Any coastal zone management program makes sense only if it means a simpli-
fication and not a further complication of land, water, and resource use 3
activities in the coastal area.U

Local people are concerned that a coastal zone management program would
add an additional bureaucratic procedure on top of the existing ones.I

As a solution to simplified administration of land, water, and resource
use activities related to coastal area, the Commission recommends thatI
all applications to be submitted to just one local authority which would
then further process the application, obtaining simultaneously comments.
from the various federal, state and local agencies before a decision is
made and the requirements or conditions of approval be listed. This
would greatly reduce the expenses and wasted time of the applicant.
This single local authority could be the local wetlands board, or a
similar agency.
Role of Local Government (State Assessment Report)

Paramount to any specific coastal concern identified was the belief
that the local decision-making process should be maintained and any
attempt to design a program which would alter this premise would be
strongly resisted. Participants emphatically stated that localities
could accept additional responsibilities, even in light of growing local
responsibilities, if sufficient funds were made available for that pur-
pose.

-46-1

3 ~~~~General Concern (Planning District's Position Paper)

In order to facilitate the coastal zone management, the Commission
recommends that an exact delineation of the coastal zone be made.
All land, water, and resource use activities in the coastal zone
would be supervised by the local'coastal zone management authority
(Wetlands Board or similar agency), All activity in areas outside
of the coastal zone would be under the supervision of the local Planning
and Zoning Commnission. There would be no overlap of authority in

I ~~~~The Commission realizes that achievement of the above recommendations
would involve changing existing federal and state laws.

3 ~~~~Program Coordination (State Assessment Report)

.... If 'the Coastal Zone Management Program could provide a mechanism
to bring together these diffused and uncoordinated programs in~to a
I ~ ~~~more unified Approach to coastal problem solving, it would be supported.
Conversely, if the program solely succeeded in producing another layer
of administrative and bureaucratic review, it would stimulate organized
opposition.
Erosion Due to Land Development Activities (Planning District's Position
* ~~~~Paper)

Erosion due to man-made activities and land disturbances cause very
little erosion problems on the Eastern. Shore of Virginia due to the
I ~ ~~~level contour of the land and, therefore, the Commission opposes the
stringent requirement of the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control measures
3 ~~~~of the State law.

Induced Erosion/Sediment Control (State Assessment Paper)

3 ~~~~Management techniques and regulatory provisions for controlling erosion
emanating from land alterations and construction were severely criticized
in RAC (Regional Advisory Commission) discussions. Particular opposition
was raised regarding the Statewide Soil Erosion and Sediment Control
Ordinance.
3 ~~~~Flood Control (Planning District's Position Paper)

Flood danger in coastal areas and even in inland areas does exist due
to periodical high tidal flows or hurricanes. Adequate legislation
I ~ ~~~to prohibit any construction in these areas could meet the problem.
Flood, Erosion and Sediment Control (State Assessment Paper)

I ~~~~Given the elevation of the Shore, large portions of the region may be
subject to flooding. The'delineation of the flood plain, however, is
quite difficult as rainfall, wind and tide variables combine to produce
I ~ ~~~flooding conditions, making flood plain delineation and forecasting
most difficult. Realizing these complications, the-RAC indicated basic
3 ~~~~satisfaction with present activities involving flood insurance and control.

3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-7

Shortage of Recreation Areas and Access to OpenWaters and Barrier
Is lands

Tere is a definite shortage of public recreational areas near water.
We refer here to parks with picnic, beach, fishing and camping facilities.3

~he only beach open to the public is on Assateague Island. It is an
~ironic situation that the Eastern Share with approximately 200 miles
!of shore line has practically no public access to the waters. The
establishment of public recreation areas could solve the problem.

~Beach Access (State's Assessment Report)I

The availability of public beaches was cited as a major concern by the
participants. Public access to the beaches along both sides of the3
Shore is restricted save the (2) public beaches located at Assateague
and Cape Charles. While this shortage severely limits the number of
Shore residents that have access to the beach, it also was noted as a
factor influencing the growth of tourism.
Acquisition of the Barrier Islands by The Nature Conservancy, while
viewed by the RAC as a positive action, will delay or perhaps preventI
the transformation of the islands into additional public beach along
the seaside. The membership expressed'strong interest in the conversionu
of Parramore Island, the largest and most stable island within the system ,3
to a national seashore or park. No action is expected by the Conservancy
or the federal government until a study of the island's ecosystems and
the Shore's attitudes regarding island usage has been completed.

A conflict pervading this discussion of the public beach access to the
Barrier Islands and along the Shore was the issue of private property
rights vs. the local and regional utilization of the beaches. (RightsI
of property owners extend to the low water mark).

Recognizing this interest in the Barrier Islands, there are significant
property holdings in both counties owned by the federal and state govern-
ment that could be developed as public beach or recreational areas.
A role for the Coastal Zone Program was seen in facilitating adminis-
trative procedur~es permitting the conversion of these properties, in
conjunction with PDC and local government action., to recreation uses.

Wetlands (Planning Di-strict's Position Paper)I

State laws regulating wetland management are seen by the Commission
as too restrictive and time consuming. Difficulty seen with StateI
overview, not local administration.

Wetlands (state Assessment Report)

The Eastern Shore of Virginia has extensive and productive wetlands
that extend along the Bay and sea boundaries of the Shore. Because
of the large acreage embraced by the wetlands, the enactment of StateI
wetlands legislation had a major impact upon the region. The law.,-~

WhiCh, has been in effect since 1972, was seen as too restrictive and
time consuming. The participants identified the difficulties as emerging
from the State overview and not the local implementation of the program.

3 ~~The State's Assessment Report contained a final section entitled, "Program
Emphasis and Participation Second Year"', which states that:

3 ~~~~Continued participation by the RAG will be most useful in conducting
this validation. In the instance of PDG 22, the sessions with the RAG
would continue, but on a less frequent basis. The primary purpose for
the continued meetings with the RAG would be to receive comments as to
conclusions emanating from the data analysis and to obtain reactions to
various management approaches.*-

3 ~~~~~*(It is anticipated that the scope of the participation program
would be enlarged within the region to include sessions with
local governments, planning commissions and citizen groups in
I ~ ~~~~~addition to those held with the RAG).
Conversations with the RAG in PDC 22 throughout the last six (6)
months have indicated that, while they have serious reservations
about the program, avid participation is essential if local govern-
ments are to inject their views into the decision-making process.

I ~~~~PDC 22, therefore, supports the retention of the RAG structure during
the second program year in order to maintain an avenue of communication
by which they can communicate their ideas concerning Coastal Zone Manage-
I ~ ~~~ment to the respective State agencies in addition to requesting the
provision of funds to the PDG to assist with second year activities.

3 III1. CONCLUSIONS

As the largest owner of coastal zone real estate on the Eastern Shore, The
Nature Conservancy is understandably concerned with the coastal zone planning
I ~ ~process. The actions of Planning District Commission 22 and the State Divi--
sion of Planning and Community Affairs have the potential for significantly
impacting upon the Virginia Coast Reserve.

Planning District Commission 22 did not provide for public input during the
first year of the 305 grant program. Public participation will be required
by the State during the second year and the Conservancy, using the information
generated from this study, will be in a good position to offer constructive
input to the coastal zone management planning process for Accomack and North-
ampton Counties. It is our intention to work'as closely as possible with
N ~~Planning District Commission 22 and the State Division of Planning to
insure that sound coastal zone management programs are developed on the
* ~~~Eastern Shore.

Some statements contained in the State Assessment Report and the Planning
District's Position Paper appear to conflict with data gathered during the
Virginia Coast Reserve Study. Copies of our study will be made available
to the Planning District and the Division of State Planning.

I ~~~~~~~~~~~-49-

During the coastal zone management planning process, consideration should
be given to the desirability and feasibility of establishing a marine and/
or estuarine sanctuary. These programs are described briefly in the Legis-
lative Compendium section of the Virginia Coast Reserve.Study.

-50-

VIRGINIA COMMISSION OF OUTDOOR RECREATION

LEGAL AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES

A. Jegal Authority

:(This information was taken from The Virginia Outdoors Plan 1974,
Co mmission of Outdoor Recreation, p. 6.)

The Act creating the Commission of.Outdoor Recreation named it to be the
official State agency to "create and put into effect a long-range plan
for the acquisition... and development of a comprehensive system of out-
door recreation facilities..." Other provisions in the Act spell out
the nature of the statewide recreation plan. Based upon the Commission
of Outdoor Recreation Act and adoption by the Commission of Outdoor
Recreation, this present document constitutes the official Statewide
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan for Virginia - the "Virginia
3Otdoors Plan."

The legal authority for Virginia to participate in the Land and Water
Conservation Fund program is contained in Section 10-21.8 (e) of the
Act creating the Commission of Outdoor Recreation. The Director of the
Commission assumed the responsibilities of State Liaison Officer to the
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, U.S. Department of the Interior, on May 1,
1967.

B. Administrative Structure of the Commission

...The Commission is composed of four ex-officio members who represent
four state agencies concerned with outdoor recreation, and five members
appointed from the state at-large by the Governor. In addition, nine
other major state agencies are represented on the Commission. This
representation provides a formal policy-level coordination mechanism.
The agencies represented are the Department of Conservation and Economic
Development (including the Divisions of Parks, Forestry, Mined Land
Reclamation, and Mineral Resources, and the State Travel Service), the
Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries, the Department of Highways and
the Division of State Planning and Community Affairs...

C. Responsibilities

The Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation is responsible for the
preparation of the State Outdoor Recreation Plan, the coordination of
matters which relate to recreation, and the implementation of the Plan
through a grant-in-aid program.

For the purposes of the Virginia Coast Reserve Study, the Commission of
Outdoor Recreation's responsibilities for the implementation of the Plan I
are treated in Part 11 of this portion of the study, and a discussion of
pertinent aspects of the Virginia Outdoors Plan 1974 is the subject of
Parts III-and IV.

IMPIHLEMENTATION OF THE VIRGINIA OUTDOORS PLAN

(Plan 1974, pp. 146-148, 150-152).

A. The Roles of Local Governments and YrQuasi-.Public P rgrms

Local Governments

The political subdivisions of the State (the cities, towns and counties)
have the legal powers to provide a comprehensive system of public outdoor
recreation areas and open spaces. They can acquire sites by various
methods, develop them, operate them, secure scenic easements, zone their I
floodplains and other hazardous lands against intensive development, and
can encourage the preservation of open spaces by private property owners
through preferential taxation. They can do these things individually, or I
they can do them cooperatively through the medium of a regional park
authority (Chapter 27, Title 15.1, Code of Virginia).

Local governments finance their park and recreation -activities out of
local general funds, supplemented by grants-in-aid, by special revenues
and by borrowings. Bond issues are becoming more and more useful and 3
sensible for long-range investments in land and permanent improvements .
In the eight years prior to 1973, Virginia cities, towns Iand counties
issued almost $58,000,000 in bonds for outdoor recreation land acquisitions3
and developments, with more expected to follow.3

Quasi-Public Programs

These are the activities of non-profit, public-spirited groups and indi-
viduals that contribute so much to the total effort toward preserving
the natural environment and historical resources, and of providing outdoor3
recreational opportunities. Among them are National Audubon Society,U
Izaak Walton League, the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, service clubs,
country clubs, swimming and tennis clubs, and many others. Historic
preservation organizations, such as Colonial Williamsburg and the Asso- I
ciation for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities (APVA), also con-
tribute to recreational enjoyment. Indeed, in Virginia., there are many
places like Williamsburg or Mount Vernon where historical education is
a form of recreation, and the two cannot be separated.

Public recreational opportunities are provided by the public utility
companies in connection with hydra-electric projects, under regulations I
of the Federal Power Commission.

-52-3

H ~~~B. Implementation Measures

Land Use Controls

~3asically, the need is for intelligent regulation of the use and develop-
ment of land in the broad public interest. Historically, this has been
I '~~~Idone by zoning under the police power of the state, delegated to and
'exercised by the cities, towns and counties. Experience has shown that
!this system does not always work to the best interests of the people
I ~ ~~~at large where a resource lies within two or more political subdivisions
1or is of more than just local importance. The larger state interests,
and even the national interest, is now being recognized in the treat-
I In~~~ent of wetlands.
Tax Incentives

I ~~~~The new Land Use Assessment Law, designed to encourage and assist private
property owners to maintain their lands in agricultural, horticultural
* forestry and open space uses is based on the concept that for them to
do so accomplishes a public purpose.
Implementation of the Land Use Assessment Law is optional and Northampton
County has chosen not to use it. In a-conversation with Kenneth Arnold,
Commissioner of Revenue, stated that the County expected to enact this
legislation within a couple of years. At present, land is being reassessed
and new tax bills will be issued in 1978. At this time, the County will
* ~~~~try to implement the Land Use Assessment Law as it applies to agricultural
lands, open space and forests.

Accomack County is in the same position as Northampton except they have
developed no plans, at present, to exercise their local option of giving

I ~~~~Easements

Scenic, historic or.open space easements offer a way for private owners
of property to preserve these values for future generations to enjoy
without giving up their ownership and.yet with the possibility of certain
tax advantages.' Such an easement is simply a dedication of restrictions
on the future use and development of the property, given voluntarily
I ~ ~~~to a public or semi-public agency in trust. The Virginia Outdoors
* Foundation was created by the Legislature expressly for this purpose.
The owner and his successors in ownership retain the right of continued
I ~ ~~~ownership and usage, consistent with the restrictions. The donor is
eligible for a deduction in his federal and state income taxes and in
the inheritance taxes on his estate.

Multiple Uses

Among the desired uses of public and private lands are the recreational

-53-

uses of military reservations, hunting privileges on private forest3
lands, and others. One further possibility is the use of public utility
r~ights-of-way for trails and bikeways, and even for play space in urban
areas where other open land is unavailable.3

C. T~he Virginia Outdoors Fund

~fhis fund is a major source of money for the acquisition and development
:of recreational lands at the state and local levels. It consists of state
'funds appropriated by the General Assembly, and federal funds allocated
to the state from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It is administered3
by the Commission of Outdoor Recreation in accordance with the VirginiaU
Outdoors Plan. Money is authorized by the Commission from time to time,
subject to the Governor's approval and that of the Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation, for specific qualifying projects of certain State agencies
and of the cities, towns, counties and regional park authorities through-
out the State. The State Division of Parks and the Commission of Game
and Inland Fisheries both receive funds through this program.

The majority of these projects are funded 50 percent with federal Land
and Water Conservation Funds. In the case of State Park acquisitions
and major developments, the other 50 percent consists of appropriatedI
State money. For Came and Fish projects, the Outdoors Fund provides
50 percent federal money to go with 50 percent Game and Fish Commission
money, which comes from its own funds obtained from licenses, fees and
other non-federal sources. City, county and town projects are funded
50 percent Land and Water Conservation Funds, 25 percent State, and 25
percent local. Regional Park Authority projects are funded 50 percent
Land and Water Conservation Funds, 30 percent State, and 20 percent local
funds. The extra five percent State funding is to stimulate efforts to
establish park authorities with memberships composed of two or more
political subdivisions. (Accomack and Northampton Counties have not .
combined their parks and recreation agencies to qualify as "Regional
Park Authority").

Since the beginning of the Virginia Outdoors Fund in January, 1966, and
through December 31', 1973, approximately $39 million in State and federal-
funds have been committed to projects in Virginia. Although the obligation
is impressive, the existing supply of outdoor recreation facilities ism
still far short of actual needs ....

Land and Water Conservation funds are apportioned by Congress on anI
annual basis. Although the program is scheduled for a 25-year period,
annual apportionments are subject to Congressional and Presidential dis-
cretion. Frequently, Virginia's share of the fund is not known until
several months after the beginning of the fiscal year. The uncertainity
of annual federal apportionments combined with the uncertainty of biennial
State allocations makes 'it difficult to plan an orderly sequence of acqui-

Since the beginning of the Virginia Outdoors Fund, the amounts available
to the program were as follows:I

-54-I

TABLE 3

FUNDS AVAILABLE

TOTAL
Biennium State Federal (State/Federal)

1966-68 $ 4,298,950 $ 4,129,313 $ 8,428,263
1968-70 3,040,000 2,105,533 5,145,533
1970-72 3,000,000 10,185,564 13,185,564
1972-74 8,274,000 5,169,584 13,443,584
1974-76 5,050,000 7,184,700 12,234,700

TOTALS (Approx.) $ 23,662,950 $ 28,774,694 $ 52,437,644

D. Priorities in the Use of the Virginia Outdoors Fund

Budget Controls

In its administration of the Virginia Outdoors Plan, the Commission has
first of all some constraints imposed by the General Assembly in the
biennial Appropriations Act. For the 1972-74 biennium, for example, in
a total general fund appropriation of $8,274,000 about 70 percent, or
$5,774,000, was specified for State parks and 30 percent, or $2,500,000,
for local and regional parks assistance. Approximately the same proportions
are incorporated in the 1974-76 budget request. This sets the basic frame-
work for broad priorities in this program.

Federal Land and Water Conservation Funds come to the State without such
restrictions. They are shared among State and local government agencies,
however, roughly in the same proportion as the State funds, subject to
some differences in matching ratios. On State projects, the State and
federal funds are matched equally. On local government projects (cities,
towns, counties), the ratio currently is 50 percent federal, 25 percent
State and 25 percent local. On regional projects (administered by an
official regional park authority), the ratio is 50 percent federal, 30
percent State and 20 percent local. Federal matching is limited by law
to not over 50 percent. Otherwise, these are policy determinations by
the Commission of Outdoor Recreation, whichcan be changed at any time
within the limits of funds available. Since the start of the program
in Virginia, federal funds have actually been allocated 47 percent to
local agencies and 53 percent to State projects, while State funds have
gone 28.5 percent to local agencies and 71.5 percent to State.

Acquisition vs. Development

This again has been a policy determination by the Commission of Outdoor
Recreation, the Division of Parks, the General Assembly and other State
officials. The decisions are based largely on the realization that good
park land is limited, some of the more important sites are threatened
with exploitation, and land values are going up about 15 percent per
year on the average, making land acquisition quite urgent. Development
after the land is acquired can be stretched out over many years without
so much risk, except for the presently rising cost of construction.
Therefore, the following guides apply:

-55-

1. Acquisition of State park lands has been and will continue to
take general priority over developme'nt, although developmentm
should now be accelerated with a view to opening more park land
to public enjoyment without further delay.

/2. Further development or redevelopment of some older State parks
will be pushed, to make better public use of available acreage.

3. Acquisition of local or regional parks will continue to be favored
over development, especially in those regions having a major need
for acreage; provided, however, that some development is also
advisable and should be encouraged in regions having major defi-
ciencies in existing facilities. .

During 1975 and 1976, there has been a trend toward developing lands
already acquired by state-, local and regional park agencie's and less
emphasis on acquiring additional areas. -

General CriteriaI

eApproval of projects for financing from the Virginia Outdoors Fund (Land3
and Water Conservation Funds plus State funds) is by vote of the nine-memberU
Commission of Outdoor Recreation at its periodic official meetings, after
full investigation and recommendation by its technical staff. *To assist
in weighing each project and determining which ones to approve withinI
the limits of available funds, the Commission looks at several factors,
as follows:

1. The extent to whic h the project will meet a demonstrated need,I
particularly the deficiencies identified in the Virginia Outdoors
Plan or in a local or regional plan. High priority will be given
to localities that have (a) a well-conceived local or regiona
park and open space plan as part of its comprehensive plan in
which recreational needs and priorities Are identified, and
(b) floodplain and other conservation or protective zoning forI
critical environmental areas.

2. An equitable distribution of funds between the various sections~f
of the State, in consideration of such factors as population,
visitation, and location of natural assets.

3. Special encouragement of regional park agencies that provideI
recreational facilities to serve a group of communities
collectively, rather than just one.

4. The capacity of the sponsor to start the project promptly,
complete it, and maintain it for public use. This includes
the sponsor's ability to finance its part of the cost and to
provide an adequate professional staff of park and recreation
personnel.
5. The ability of the sponsor, or lack of it, to finance the project *
from other sources.

6. The need for assistance in completing a good project that can be
made better by a change in scope.I

-56-I

7. The urgency for acquisition to forestall an undesireable Use of
I ~ ~~~~the land or a roitveincrease in cost.

*8. The situation as to other projects with higher priorities.

General-Priorities

I ~~In addition to the foregoing considerations, certain types of areas will
receive favorable priority because of their physical character or location.
i . ~~These are:

1. Areas with frontage op. the ocean, rivers, lakes, estuaries, and
reservoirs that will provide waterbased recreational opportunities.

U ~~~~2. Additions to existing parks, forests, wildlife areas, reservations,
and parkways where the additions will be devoted to public recrea-
tion purposes.

3. Areas of land and water along scenic roads, rivers, floodplains,
trail, routes, and wetlands, or that give public access thereto.

4. Areas containing sites for lakes having recreational uses.

5. Outstanding areas of natural or pastoral beauty, natural wonders,
special ecological areas, and such others as deserve public pres-

pincareas, playgrounds, sports and games areas (non-professional),
parks, municipal forest preserves, greenbelts and the like.

Inlooking for areas to purchase for local and regional purposes, the
*~~~Cmisinpae high priority on Ilarge tracts which can service
~~reinoftesaerather than single jurisdictions. These tracts
should be in a natural state as far as possible and have access to
water for water-related activities. -Regions without such park and
recreation facilities are high priority. Regions which apply for
funds for additional acquisition and development are looked at care-
fully in terms of past performance with Commission funds.

I ~~~Priorities Based on Need and Adequacy

Combined with all of the foregoing factors in the determination of pro-
ject justification and priority are the factors of need and adequacy
as measured by the supply and demand studies and the acreage standards
described i'n this plan. An effort is made, among others, to satisfy
the unmet demand in a given locality as closely as possible.
III. THE VIRGINIA OUTDOORS PLAN 1974

A. Summary of Recommendations

Those recommendations pertinent to the Virginia Coast Reserve have been
I ~ ~~reproduced from the Plan, pp. 14-16:

I ~~~~~~~~~~-57-

Rural Recreation

1. Rural localities should appraise their special natural attractions
and develop them not only for the enjoyment of their own people,
but particularly to capture spillover business from major urban
areas.

2. Adjacent smaller towns and rural counties should join together
and establish regional park authorities to provide recreation
facilities cooperatively for their residents.

3. Every town, county, and planning district should have a long-range
plan and program for developing a comprehensive system of recre-
ation areas and facilities. These should be an integral part of
a comprehensive land-use platn prepared by the appropriate planning f
commission.

4. The towns and counties should use their zoning, sub-division, and
other regulatory control powers more effectively to prevent flood-
plain encroachments, protect scenic roads and rivers, promote open
spaces, *and for other worthwhile objectives.

5. Localities should levy a two-cent tax now authorized by law to
provide a recreation fund.

The State Park System

1. Twenty-eight new State parks should be acquired and development
started.

2. Facilities in the present park and recreation areas should be
enlarged and improved.

Natural Areas System

The present State Natural Areas System administered by the Division of
Parks should be expanded to preserve additional areas of ecological,
faunal, floral, geological, marine or aquatic significance. In addition,
the State should encourage and support the preservation of natural areas
by all public agencies and private organizations, through zoning, easements,*
preferential taxation and other means.

Wildlife Resources

1. The construction of public water access areas should be accelerated.I

2. Wildlife management areas should be developed for a broad range of*
natural environmental usage.

Wetlands*

1. The Virginia Institute of Marine Science should determine legal
ownership of wetlands and carry out ecological studies.

2. A fund for the acquisition of w etlands and a program of wetlandI
acquisition should be established.

-58-I

B. Participation and Coordination

(Plan 1974, pp. 17-19).

I ~~~The'inventory of existing outdoor recreation areas and resources was made
thi~ough participation by the 22 planning district commissions and other
State, federal and local agencies. The commissions had -not all been fully
I ~~~organized in time for this effort but those that were in operation did
participate. The information will serve their needs as well as those of
the state-wide plan. The final results have been provided the districts
I ~~~and localities for their regional and local use in the publication "1972
Virginia Outdoor Recreation Inventory", by the Division of Forestry and
the Extension Division of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
This was another item of "participation"t. Detailed computer printouts of
the recreation inventory have also been furnished-to the planning district
commissions.

I ~~~The planning district commissions were consulted also in connection with
the Recreational Demand Survey and have been provided with the published
report for use in their territories. Each planning district commission
I ~~~is supposed to prepare a Comprehensive Land Use Plan for its territory
including a Park and Open Space Plan. The demand and inventory data thus
provided are being used in this connection, along with other material and
I ~~~recommendations in the Virginia Outdoors Plan. Each local government in
turn is expected to prepare its own local park and open space plan within
the framework of the district plan. As the planning district commissions
become more thoroughly established and experienced, the effectiveness of
these lines of communication will improve.
An additional means of coordination b etween the State, district and local
I ~~~park planning efforts is available through the Division of State Planning
and Community Affairs which provides substantial matching money for oper-
ation of the planning district commissions and also administers the
I ~~~Planning Assistance (701) Program of the Federal Department of Housing
and Urban Development. Much of the local and district planning is done
through this program. The Commission of Outdoor Recreation provides
advisory assistance to the localities and districts in the prepreation
of their plans and reviews their plans in draft form. The 1974 Virginia
Outdoors Plan has been designed in part to provide useful information
for the local and regional agencies and to stimulate increased coordi-
nation.
In addition, there are numerous other means of coordination. The pri-
I ~~~mary instrument, as previously noted, is the Commission of Outdoor
Recreation itself. Another is through participation of many kinds of
committees and task forces. Examples include:

State Land Evaluation Advisory Committee, which sets the ranges of
suggested values for use value taxation on open space and other
lands. The Director of the Commission of Outdoor Recreation is a
member of the committee.

I ~~~~~~~~~~~-59-

Tourism and Industrial Potentials, Virginia Eastern Shore, under-I
taken by the Division of State Planning and Community Affairs with
funds provided largely by the Economic Development Administration
of the U.S. Department of Commerce, to appraise the potential forI
agriculture-agribusiness, seafood, recreation and tourism, and
industrial development in this two-county region.
Critical Environmental Areas Study, by'the Division of State Planning
and Community Affairs at the direction of the General Assembly, in
Iwhich 134 critical environmental areas were delineated throughout
the State. The Commission of Outdoor Recreation and 13 other State I
agencies participated on the task force. Detailed studies of selected
areas are requiring further collaboration.

Open Space and Recreation Report, undertaken by the Accomack-North-
ampton Planning District-Commission. This -report contains a survey
of the existing recreational facilities and open space in Planning
District #22, discusses *the present recreational shortcomings, and
presents a plan for recreational facilities for the years 1980-2000.

C. Natural AreasI

(Plan 1974, pp. 75-79).

As the population increases and man-made developments spread across the
face of Virginia, there remain fewer and fewer unspoiled examples of the
natural world in which we live. And at the same time we find more andI
more that intimate and informed contacts with nature provide experiences
which educate the human character. In a statement of policy, the Depart-
ment of Conservation and Economic Development declares that "the privilege
of returning, for an hour or a day, to the untouched beauty of the natural
world, in all its variety, should be the opportunity and the right of every
Virginian."

Creative work in all the biological sciences requires frequent field study
in natural areas where'the delicate ecological balances of nature have not
been disturbed by man. The preservation of such areas for purposes of con- I
tinuing study is an essential service to the secondary, college, and post-
graduate.-students of the State.

Establishment of the Natural Areas System of Virginia was initiated in 1960
by acquisition of Parker's Marsh on the Eastern Shore, with funds provided
by the Old Dominion Foundation. Four other areas have since been acquired: I
Wreck and Bone Island, Charles C. Steirly Natural Area, Goshen Pass, and
Lick Creek. A large part of Seashore State Park has been designated as a
natural area and is on the National Register of Natural Landmarks. The
total area of these six properties is now over 4,900 acres. Major addi-I
tions to the list will be made when several of the Barrier Islands, recently
acquired by The Nature Conservancy, are transferred to the State.

These acquisitions demonstrate the State's official recognition of the
value of the wilderness to present and future generations. Preserved
choice bits of nature, selected for the aesthetic, physiographic, orI
biologic uniqueness, have been acquired.

The State system of natural areas should continue to expand. Some 25 or
30 potential areas are indicated on the accompanying map. Some of theseI
should undoubtedly be handled by other public or semi-public agencies,

-60-

which the State should encourage. Several small areas in the State Forests,
for example, have been set aside by the Division of Forestry; and, in the
National Forests, there are two "scenic" areas designated in the Jefferson
National Forest (Mountain Lake and Mount Rogers), and one "wilderness"
area (James River Face), with two more under study. The designation of
suitable lands for "natural" areas (wilderness, scenic, etc.) is an established
part of the multiple-use management principle in the National Forests, but
the truly natural areas do need to be set aside and protected from multiple
use. Several locations are recommended herein for such protection.

3 <~~~Expansion of the Natural Areas System (including both State and other
holdings) should have as its objectives the following:I

1 ~~~~1. To preserve the rare examples of nature, wherever they occur.

2. To preserve the best representative examples of typical natural
3 ~~~~~~conditions in each section of the State.

3. To secure a variety of types.

.4. *To have these all under protective custody according to the most
I ~ ~~~~logical administrative agency in each case.

* ~~~Types of Areas

Natural areas suggested for pr otection are of many types. Some are marshes
or swamps having unusual characteristics in Virginia, including the Great
U ~ ~~Dismal Swamp which in certain respects is nationally unique. Some are
remarkably rugged and scenic mountain areas, or especially beautiful river
gorges. Some are seashore fastnesses., other dense forests or curious rock
formations or secluded waterfalls. One group of karst areas, including
important caves, sinks, sinking creeks, natural arches, and big springs,
is of special importance. Karst formations are created by the dissolving
action of water on limestone, and Virginia has some that are of major
national importance. They need to be protected against destructive ex-
ploitation and vandalism.

3 ~~~The Nature Co nservancy

This national, non-profit society has probably done more in its quiet way
I ~ ~~to save important pieces of nature in Virginia than has any other agency.
It steps in when such an area is threatened, buys the property if necessary,
and turns it over as soon as possible to some governmental or other con-
servation agency. It has a revolving fund for this purpose. It receives
I ~ ~~some properties as gifts, and some are retained in their own custody. Among
these are several natural areas shown on plate 10. Altogether, The Nature
Conservancy has succeeded in saving more than 30,000 acres of naturally
important land in Virginia, some of which it has transferred to other
agencies, and some it has kept. Currently, the Conservancy is trying to
preserve some 80 natural areas around the Chesapeake Bay, in Virginia,
through "adoption" by interested individuals and organizations.
Recommendations

I ~~~Realizing that natural succession in temperate climates can restore "natural"
conditions in less than half a century in Virginia, many areas are suggested
3 ~~~for Natural Area designationi which do not now represent remarkable wilder-

-61-

ness types or contain old-growth communities. These could provide areas
for accommodating environmental education classes, youth group outings,
teacher camps and nature study by individuals.

Specific areas are suggested on the regional maps as potential Natural
Areas and on the State Natural Area System mpa. If, after study, they are
found suitable, they should be protected for their natural values in the
face of all timber, mining, water or recreational development demands.

'Private groups such as The Nature Conservancy are encouraged in their very
important efforts to preserve endangered relict areas or valuable resources.

Efforts now under way to acquire natural areas by the Division of Parksl
and by the Division of Forestry should be accelerated and private organi-
zations alerted before destruction of a desirable resource becomes imminent.3

A register of critical environmental areas will be maintained as part of
a continuing environmental resource survey by the Division of State Planning
and Community Affairs. The Virginia Outdoors Foundation can utilize this
register in supplementing the activities of other agencies in fostering
donations, exchanges or acquisitions by appropriate agencies.

IV. THE VIRGINIA OUTDOORS PLAN AND THE VIRGINIA BARRIER ISLANDSI

A. The 1974 Plan

Although the Eastern Share of Virginia has less than one percent of the State's
population (42,400 in 1972), it embraces a large percentage of the State's
saltwater shores including most of the ocean frontage. To a very large extent I
this frontage is relatively unspoiled. On the Chesapeake Bay side there are
islands and inlets, and some marshlands with sandy beaches toward the southern
end. On the seaward side there are wide expanses of marshland, shallow bays, 3
and winding channels all guarded by a chain of barrier islands with beautifully
unspoiled occan beaches. This whole region is a vast incubating and feeding
ground for bird and sea life that is of vital importance to fish and wildlife
interest far beyond the borders of this one State.
The region has great recreational, educational, and historical importance. Thre
have been a few attempts at commercial exploitation, but now a massive attempt
is being made to acquire and preserve the b~arrier islands in their natural state
for perpetual protection and limited public recreation. All or part of eight
islands and marshes have been acquired by The Nature Conservancy, three islands f
are being administered by federal agencies, and one island is maintained byU
the State as a natural area. On the bay side, there are two State-controlled
areas of marshlands, one for wildlife management and hunting and one a protected
natural area. The State also owns extensive wetlands for 'Wildlife management f
in between the mainland and barrier islands on the ocean side.

Present recreation facilities seem to be adequate for the present local demand I
for most types of outdoor activity. The principal need on the Shore is to pro-
vide outlets for Virginians in general and for those from other states to begin *
to enjoy the natural seashore and bayside resources described above. The f
actions proposed here will help to achieve the long range, goals of conserving -
outstanding examples of Virginia's natural resources and at the same time pro-
vide space for facilities to meet some of the shortages that now exist in the
Norfolk-Newport News area.

-62-3

State Parks

I 1. Butlers Bluff. This unique stretch' of wooded bluff and sand
beach, south of Cape Charles in Northampton County, should be
given high priority for acquisition and development. Butlers
Bluff State Park will preserve a resource and satisfy some of
the inter-regional demand for boat access, beach use, fishing,
picnicking and hiking trails.

2. Barrier Islands(Accomack and Northampton Counties). The islands
that are now owned by The Nature Conservancy are being given con-
sideration for acquisition by the State. Parramore Island, seven
and one-half miles long, three quarters of a mile wide, and con-
taining 6,250 acres of land, is considered to be one of the best
remaining undeveloped areas along this section of the Atlantic
coast. Within the forest-covered area of the island are several
fresh water ponds frequented by migratory waterfowl.

Natural Areas

3. Cape Charles Natural Area (Northampton County). This 293-acre
area, acquired when it became surplus to the needs of the Depart-
ment of Defense, is being maintained as a natural area and will,
in the future, provide an access point to the Barrier Islands.

National Seashore

4. Assateague Island National Seashore (Accomack County). Addi-
tional land acquisition and some limited developments are planned
for the Virginia portion of Assateague Island National Seashore
although there has been a moratorium on all developments within
the Seashore since 1969.

Scenic Highways, Byways and Parkways

5. Route 180 (Accomack County). From Pungoteague to Wachapreague.

6. Route 605 (Accomack County). From Wachapreague to Accomac.

7. Route 175. (Accomack County). From Route 13 to Chincoteague.

8. Route 718 and Route 178 (Accomack County). From Onancock to
Accomac.

Public Game and Fish Management Areas

9. Wildlife Management Lands and Waters (Northampton and Accomack
Counties). Long range plans of the Commission of Game and Inland
Fisheries include the acquisition of marshlands between the main-
land and the Barrier Islands for waterfowl management.

10. A public water access area is proposed at Wise Point in Northampton
County.

B. The Commission and the Virginia Coast Reserve

In response to a Conservancy letter of inquiry regarding the Commission
of Outdoor Recreation and the Virginia Barrier Islands, Commission Di-
rector, Rob R. Blackmore, stated in a letter of August 14, 1975:

-63-

"... .The Virginia Outdoors Plan, 1974 (copy enclosed) addresses the
broad scope of outdoor recreation and environmental conservation in
Virginia. Hopefully, the data in this publication will provide3
you with many of the answers which you are seeking. The Plan
addresses long range plans for acquisition, development, financial
plans, existing facilities and other matters of-this type. Budgetary
or financial capabilities can be projected for all kinds of programs, I
but they can be approved only by our General Assembly on a biennial
/basis. Our State has not actively pursued a natural area of wilder-
ness program. We have supported wilderness designations an some ofI
the federal lands in Virginia; however, there is no such designation
on State-owned lands.

You will recall that I made the statement during our meeting that we
are very much willing to work with The Nature Conservancy, federal
agencies or others that might be involved in a program of protection
and management for Virginia's Barrier Islands. I feel that the State
of Virginia has the flexibility to respond to just about any type
of program you might recommend. Whether we can get the money to
finance such a program is another question altogether; and, as I I
mentioned previously, that final decision would have to rest with
our General Assembly...."1

IV; CONCLUSIONS

The Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation and their Virginia Outdoors
Recreation Plan provide funding and guidance to local and state agencies
that implement outdoor recreation programs. The Commission is not a land
holding and managing agency of the state. For this reason, The Nature Con-
servancy has not drawn specific conclusions as to what role The VirginiaI
Commission of Outdoor Recreation might play in the future management of
the Virginia Coast Reserve. However, it is important to note that the
conclusions drawn concerning the state and local land managing agenciesI
reflect, in part, the directions and perspectives found in the Virginia
Outdoors Recreation Plan.. Lands acquired by the state and local agencies
may be financed in part or total with funds provided or approved by the
Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation.

-64-~~~~~~~

ACCOMACK AND NORTHAMPTON COUNTIES

I. PROPOSALS

A. Accomack-Northampton Planning District Commission

he Accomack-Northampton Planning District Commission adopted a reso-
lution in February, 1975, requesting that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
'Service and the National Park Service establish a Wildlife Refuge and
a National Seashore, respectively, on Parramore Island (Accomack County),
after the fashion of Assateague Island, which would be designed to per-
mit public recreation and yet protect valuable wildlife areas. (See
Appendices A & C ). For a discussion of this proposal in the context
of the two federal agencies, see the sections on the National Park Ser-,
Vice and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

B. The Nature Conservancy

The Nature Conservancy envisions that some non-destructive daytime
recreation uses by the public in certain areas of the Virginia Coast
Reserve may be desirable. These uses could include swimming, surf-
fishing, organized hiking and picnicking. The Conservancy's objective
of preservation will determine which uses and areas are to be opened to
the public, when and how. However, the Conservancy has determined that
some such activities are both compatible and desirable, and should be
encouraged with appropriate limitations. Given the interest expressed
by local community members in establishing recreation areas in the
barrier islands, it is appropriate that the Northampton and Accomack
County governments be approached by the Conservancy with cooperative
arrangements in mind.

Within each county the Conservancy has identified an area where certain
public uses would be compatible with preservation if carefully monitored.
These areas are Hog and Smith Islands in Northampton County and Cedar
and Metomkin Islands in Accomack County. One arrangement to accomplish
this would be a lease agreement on an annual basis with each county
requiring that each'county enforce the terms of the agreement, develop
facilities (which should be minimal) and provide transportation or
access from the.county's own resources.

Rod Hennessey, Director of the Virginia Coast Reserve Study, broached
the subject of a cooperative arrangement with Rebecca McCann, Director
of the Northampton Recreation and Parks Department, Donald Hull, Director
of the Accomack County Parks and Recreation Department, and C.M. Williams,
County Administrator of Accomack County in September, 1975.

II. THE COUNTIES' PARKS ANDiRECREATION AGENCIES

A. Accomack County Parks and Recreation Commission

The Accomack County Board of Supervisors authorized the establishment
of that county's Parks and Recreation Commission in July, 1972. The

-65-

Agency's objective is:3

"... to provide opportunities for worthwhile use of leisure time;
to provide parks and recreational facilities for families regard-
less of ethnic background, race or creed." (Letter from DonaldI
D. Hull, Director, Accomack County Parks and Recreation Commis-
sion, October 17, 1975).

The Commission's long-range plans over the next few years call for (also I
see Appendix F )

A. Investigation of the use of Parramore Island for beach andI
nature observance.

B. Establishment of a State Park in Accomack County.3

Acquisition plans are as follows:

A. Establishment of a County Park at Wallops Island (excess landU
from NASA).

B. County Park at Saxis Island (community project).I

C. A central recreational and all-purpose complex in the central
Accomack area.I
D. Acquisition of real property to establish a recreational center
on Chincoteague Island.3

E. Establishment of a County Park in lower Accomack County.

Donald Hull's letter of October 17, 1975, states that, "...the EasternI
Shore Community College has made available to us land upon which picnic
areas and perhaps some athletic fields may be built in cooperation with
their program."I

The Parks and Recreatilon Commission proposal for the acquisition of an
inland farm, which would have provided a location for a central recrea-
tion and park facility, was voted down twice by the County Board of
Supervisors in December, 1975, and January, 1976, despite tentative
approval of a grant-in-aid by the federal Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
and a private donation promise of the additional 25% which the county
would otherwise have to put up. A major reason cited was that manage-
ment costs would prove to be a financial onus on the county.

Rod Hennessey, Director of the Virginia Coast Reserve Study, approached
Donald Hull., Director of the Commission, in late 1975, with the possi-
bility of a cooperative arrangement for the daytime recreation use of
the 22-acre Conservancy holding on Cedar Island. Mr. Hull has indicated
that when the Conservancy has completed its study of the Virginia Coast
Reserve further discussion can take place between the Commission and
the County Board of Supervisors. The Board must approve all projectsI
of the Commission.

-66-

The Parks and Recreation Commission is currently in the planning process
for the establishment of a neighborhood recreation facility on Tangier
Island. No state parks are foreseen for the immediate future in the
area due to state funding limitations.

The Commission is made up of eleven members and the Director, each
appointed by the County Board of Supervisors. The Commission staff
currently has eight full- or part-time employees and an administrative
budget of $27,800 for 1976. Acquisition funds which may be provided
by the County are separate allocations.

in response to a written inquiry from Rod Hennessey in September, 1975,
,the Commission's statement on the barrier islands was:

"In regards to current agency land holdings with significant re-
lationships with the Virginia Coastal Reserve, Accomack County
has no holdings in this relationship at the present time." (Letter
from Donald D. Hull, Director, October 17, 1975).

B. Northampton County Recreation and Parks Department

The Department of Recreation and Parks was created by the County Board
of Supervisors in January, 1975. There is no organic act for the De-
partment; its functions are defined by-its activities. In the first
year of its existence it has undertaken to both create recreation acti-
vities with existing and new facilities and to establish parks for
county residents.

The County has received 52 acres of surplus federal land at Indiantown
Neck for park and recreation purposes, and preliminary approval of a
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation grant-in-aid of $370,000 with which to
develop the planned recreation facilities. Receipt of the grant is
contingent on the County contributing 25% of that sum ($87,000). The
issue has been tabled by the Northampton County Board of Supervisors
which must approve all projects of the Recreation and Parks Department.

The possibility of a cooperative nature study program between the County
and the Conservancy on one of the Conservancy's nearby holdings -- e.g.
Hog or Smith Islands -- was discussed informally between Rod Hennessey,
Director of the Virginia Coast Reserve Study, and Rebecca McCann, Di-
rector of the Northampton County Recreation and Parks Department in
late 1975. Ms. McCann expressed interest should the County acquire
land adjacent to the Indiantown Neck site which would provide water
access to one of the islands. This appears to be the only viable
interest the Department currently has in the barrier islands.

Additional surplus land from Cape Charles Air Force Base has been applied
for for park purposes and is currently pending federal surveys.

The staff currently numbers three; a fourth person may be brought on in
1976. The annual budget for 1975 was $11,000, approximately $8,000 of
which is for park development. Salaries are drawn from the federal
Comprehensive Employment Training Assistance Act and Virginia's Urban
Assistance Incentive Fund.

-67-

III. ACCOMACK -NORTHAMPTON PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION

A. Background

The Virginia State Legislature passed a bill in 1970 requiring that the3
state be organized into 22 planning districts organized on the county
level in order to facilitate regional planning. The Accomack-Northampton
Planning District Commission was organized in mid-1970 as District 1122.
A revised charter for the Planning District is Appendix G.

B. Coastal Zone ManagementI

Although each county's Board of Supervisors and parks and recreation
commission works individually within its own boards on most issues, the
two county governments have come together to work on the issues of theI
Coastal Zone Management Program as they affect that area. The State of
Virginia, through its designated coastal zone program agency, the Division
of State Planning and Community Affairs, has given its planning districtsI
wide latitude in structuring the mechanisms for and contributing input
to the coastal zone program in its initial phases. The state has chosen
to take its federal grant for planning a coastal zone program (offered
under section 305 of the Coastal Zone Management Act) in three one-year
segments. The second year segment has just been approved by the federal
government. The first year's activities were primarily data collection
and issue identification; the second year is intended to broaden inputI
through public participation. (For further discussion from the state's
perspective, see the state portion of this report on Coastal Zone Manage-
ment and the Division of State Planning and Community Affairs.)I

The Accomack-Northampton Planning District Commission, made up of super-
visors of the two counties, elected to name themselves as the Coastal3
Zone Management Committee for Planning District #22. It was the onlyU
one to do so; other planning districts with coastal zone responsibilities
have appointed non-members in various degrees to assist them in this
Commission members and the state's designated agency. Both the Commis-
sion and the state have drawn up position papers on the issues involved
in District #22.3

In 1975, the Division of State Planning and Community Affairs produced
an Assessment Report for Accomack-Northampton Counties addressing local
coastal zone management issues. The most interesting issue covered in
the State's Assessment Report, from The Nature Conservancy's point of
view, was beach access. The paper stated that:3

The availability of public beaches was cited as a major concern by
the participants. Public access to the beaches along both sides of
the shore is restricted save the (2) public beaches located atI
Assateague and Cape Charles. While this shortage severely limits
the number of shore residents that have access to the beach, it
also was noted as a factor influencing the growth of tourism.3

-68-3

Acquisition of the barrier islands by The Nature Conservancy, while
I ~ ~~~~viewed by the Regional Advisory Committee as a positive action, will
delay or perhaps prevent the transformation of the islands into
additional public beach along the seaside. The membership expressed
I ~ ~~~~strong interest in the conversion of Parramore-Island, the largest
and most stable island within the system, to a national seashore or
park. No action is expected by the Conservancy or the federal
government until a study of the islands' ecosystems and the shore's
attitudes regarding island usage has been 'completed.'

A conflict pervading this discussion of public beach access to the
barrier islands and along the shore was the issue of private property
rights vs. the local and regional utilization of the beaches. (Rights
3 ~~~~of property owners ex tend to the low water mark).

Recognizing this interest in the barrier islands, there are signifi-
cant property holdings in both counties owned by the federal (Ed.
Note: Wallops and Fisherman Islands) and state (Ed. Note: Wreck
Island) governments that could be developed as public beach or re-
creational areas. A role for the Coastal Zone Program was seen in
facilitating administrative procedures permitting the conversion of
I ~ ~~~the properties, in conjunction with Planning District Commission and
local government action, to recreational uses. (Coastal Zone Regional
5 ~~~~Assessment Report (draft), September,.1975, pp. 6-7.)

A second issue of importance to the ecology of the entire barrier island
chain is the 1972 State Wetlands Legislation. The paper stated that:

The Eastern Shore of Virginia has extensive and productive wetlands
that extend along the Bay and sea boundaries of the shore. Because
of the large acreage embraced by the wetlands, the enactment of State
Wetlands Legislation had a major impact upon the region. The law,
which has been in effect since 1972, was seen as too restrictive and
time consuming. The participants identified the difficulties as
I ~ ~~~~emerging from the state overview and not the local implementation
of the program. (Coastal Zone Regional Assessment Report (draft),
September, 1975, p. S.)

For additional information, refer to the Coastal Zone Regional Assessment
Report (draft), Appendix "G", and the Position Paper of Planning, District
Commission 1122: On The Future of the Coastal Zone Management Program of
the State of Virginia, Appendix G.
3 ~IV. ZONING STATUS OF THE BARRIER ISLANDS

Currently, all of the islands in Accomack and Northampton Counties are zoned
for agriculture. No zoning change requests for the islands are pending.
I ~ ~~Zoning changes are first considered by the zoning boards of the respective
counties, then voted on by the counties' Boards of Supervisors.

3 ~V. CONDEKNATION AUTHORITY

According to Virginia state laws, "Any city, town or county may establish
and conduct a system of public recreation... .may acquire land, buildings
and other recreational. facilities by gift, purchase, lease or condemnation..."
(Title 15.1, Chapter 8, Section 271, Recreation Enabling Legislation of Va.)

I ~~~~~~~~~~~-69-

VI. COUNTY WETLANDS BOARDS

A 1972 Virginia state law authorized counties to establish wetlands boards
to review permit applications for dredging, filling, and construction in each
county's wetlands. This responsibility at the state level is vested in theI
Marine Resources Commission. Accomack and Northampton Counties established
wetlands boards in August, 1975. This additional element of local responsi-
bility has not been entirely satisfactory to the two counties' leaders because
of the constraints imposed by legislation on the wetlands boards. (See dis-
cuss-ion of wetlands in the coastal zone position papers, Appendices D and
E.)

VII. CONCLUSION

Accomack and Northampton Counties are in a nearly classical situation: small,
relatively non-affluent rural communities facing what could be overnight
physical, social and economic changes. Some of the anticipated changes are
welcome, some are not, and the degree of acceptability varies between different3
individuals and groups in these communities.U

Several points surface from this brief researching of the counties' govern-
ments, their activities and attitudes toward the islands, the issues of recre-_
ation and the presence of the Conservancy in the area.

One, it is clear that the two counties' Boards of Supervisors and their parks
and recreation departments are: very interested in the recreational resources
of the area, and the potential of the islands in fulfilling local leisure
needs and providing income from tourism. A. strong desire to see Parramore
a's a National Seashore is shared by the local leaders who were interviewed.
The question of recreational needs are discussed further in the recreation
portion of the Social and Economic Analysis section of the Coast Reserve Study.

Two, it is also apparent that these bodies look to outside funding sources to
pay for the acquisition, management, and support services for major recreation
area development. Northampton County's Board is troubled by the need to raise
$87,000 to match federal and state funds for the development of a mainland
park; Accomack County's Board has expressed problems with raising the maintenance
funds required for a new mainland park which would otherwise come into their3
possession free of charge. This raises questions about the counties' capacityU
to fund any major activities on the Conservancy's holdings even though various
members of the Boards and parks departments have expressed interest in cooper-
ative arrangements for daytime limited use of several of the islands under5
Conservancy ownership.

The counties look to state and federal agencies to provide the acquisition
vehicles and the management and support services needed to establish and
maintain new parks. Yet, these state and federal agencies are currently
facing fiscal and personnel problems which severely limit their potential
involvement in the new undertakings not high on their priority lists. This
is further compounded by the attitude which most of these agencies share
that once the islands are in the Conservancy' s ownership, they are preserved
for many of the same purposes and resources for which the agencies would
manage them. Therefore, the islands in Conservancy ownership are not high
on state and federal acquisition lists if they are under consideration at all.

-70-I

Three, despite strong statements about planning for the future, at least in
terms of recreation needs, there appears to be narrow thinking in the community
about the planning and financing needed to sustain recreational development.
If Parramore could ultimately be designated as a National Seashore by the
National Park Service, the increased number of visitors from outside the
community would put pressure on the area for lodging, eating, law enforce-
ment,;utilities, and other services which would mean increased taxes and the
need for adequate community planning.

Four,;the Boards of Supervisors and the Planning District Commiss.ion have
expressed repeated concern about the large private ownership of prime recrea-
tion resources in the area. The Conservancy is the major focus involved in
this issue since it owns 13 of the barrier islands, including the largest
and most desirable ones. Given the Conservancy's strong desire to see the
islands preserved as a unique ecosystem, it may be necessary for the counties
and the Conservancy to work out suitable arrangements for the management of
these islands to permit some flexibility for public use, whether the Conser-
vancy retains ownership or transfers all or part of its holdings to other
entities. It is important that the counties be willing to seriously
explore various arrangements on the management and use of the islands on a
limited basis since it is unlikely that the Conservancy would transfer any
part of its current holdings without deed restrictions designed to prohibit
overuse or any significant alteration of the ecological features of the 13
islands. It is necessary for the counties to understand that the Conservancy's
position is based on the conviction that preservation of this area is an effort
to endow the future with an environment which cannot be regenerated or dupli-
cated, with resources which must successfully compete with human needs if
people are to live in balance with nature. This conviction benefits in the
long run both the immediate area and far beyond.

5 ~~~~~~~~~THE NATURE, CONSERVANCY

I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The Nature Conservancy is a national "publicly supported", non-governmental,
scientific and educational conservation organization exempt from taxation
Linder Section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The Conservancy's
resources are devoted to -natural area preservation in the interest of
biological diversity, scientific inquiry, and educational use. The
*Conservancy also seeks to exemplify a new land ethic and to encourage
intelligent land use.~

Article II of The Nature Conservancy's bylaws sets forth the objectives of the
organization as follows:
Recognizing a dependence on natural lands for environmental stability,
for essential scientific inquiry, for wholesome human life, and in
fact for the survival of abundant and varied life on earth, the objectives
of The Nature Conservancy are (a) to, preserve natural areas for biological
diversity, for the uses of science, and for the wilderness experience;
(b) to preserve open land for conservation of natural features, for
pleasure or recreation, and for education; (c) to restore land; (d) to
improve techniques of land preservation by demonstrating to others how
I * ~~~to do it well, by studying and trying out new ways to do it better,
and by devising standards and priorities for the preservation of natural
areas; (e) to advance the cause of natural area preservation in the
schools, in private enterprise, in government, and in other countries;
(f) to advance the foregoing objectives in cooperation with other
organizations having similar and related objectives.

I ~~~The Conservancy works in seven basic ways to accomplish its objectives:

5 ~~~~By accepting gifts of ecologically significant land for preservation;

By purchasing lands using funds available nationally from the Conser-

vancy' s own revolving fund and then repaid through fundraising;
By managing some 650 Conservancy-owned preserves using volunteers
and staff;

I. ~~~By working with local, state and federal governments to help identify
and preserve land and monitoring government preservation programs;

I ~~~~By acquiring land in advance of government agencies' ability to do
so--often with considerable sa~vings to the taxpayer.

I ~~~~By working systematically to identify the nation' s ecologically vital
- ~~~~areas in cooperation with private and public conservation and research
agencies.

I ~~~~By assisting other private or public conservation bodies in acquiring
or protecting natural lands and by accepting conservation easements.

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~-73-

II. ORGANIZATIONI

The Nature Conservancy, with a membership of approximately 25,000, is
governed by an elected Board of Governors. In addition to its volunteer
members, the Conservancy has a paid professional staff with backgroundsI
ranging from ecology to real estate and law. National 'headquarters are
in metropolitan Washington, D.C. Regionaal offices are in San Francisco,
Minneapolis, Atlanta and Boston. Field, Chapter, or project officesI
are also professionally staffed in an additional 10 states. At present,
there are 30 Conservancy chapters chartered by the Board of Governors.

III.i HISTORYI

In 1917, the Ecological Society of America established the Committee for
the Preservation of Natural Conditions, thus recognizing the fact that the
nation's natural areas were endangered. It is to this committee of scien-
tists, as well as its companion Committee for the Study of Plant and Animal
Communities, that The Nature Conservancy traces its roots.
In 1946, the Committees became a separate entity, the Ecologists Union.
After a few years of operation, during which the Union was primarily con-
cerned with encouraging other groups to establish natural areas, the mem-
bership decided that a direct and active role in natural areas preservation
could make the group more effective. Borrowing the name of an earlier
.established British group, the Ecologists Union became The Nature Conservancy I
in 1950. That same year the Conservancy was recognized as a non-profit
association by the Internal Revenue Service. In 1951, the Conservancy was
incorporated in Washington, D.C. as an orgaxiization chartered for scientificI
and educational purposes. At that time the Conservancy had 342 members.

The new organization spent several years experimenting with various methods
of land preservation. Then in 1953 the first independent project was under_
taken by the Conservancy at Mlianus River Gorge in Westchester County, New York,
when a group of Connecticut residents asked for affiliation with the Con-
servancy in order to raise money to preserve and protect the Gorge. In theI
years since, the Conservancy and its volunteer members have been involved in
over a thousand-'projects involving all types of habitats across the continent,
in the Caribbean and Latin America.

IV. ACQUISITION AND STEWARDSHIP

Although the Conservancy's origins date back to 1917, its active program of
land acquisition began only 23 years ago with the purchase of lands within
Mianus River Gorge in Westchester County, New York, By 1969, acquisitions3
had increased to over 100 per year and in 1972 the Conservancy topped the
200 per year mark. As of December 31, 1975, the Conservancy has been re-
sponsible for the acquisition of over 1,570 projects involving over 900,000
acres of forest, swamps, marshes, prairies, mountains, beaches, desertsU
and islands in 47 states, the Virgin Islands, Canada, and the Caribbean.
The Conservancy owns over 650 preserves scattered throughout the United
States and in the Virgin Islands. Table 4 shows a recent history ofI
Conservancy land ownership.

-74-

TABLE 4

RECENT HISTORY OF CONSERVANCY LAND OWNERSHIP

Year Acres

1966 18,659
1967 20,907
1968 47,006
1969 55,478
1970 47,779
1971 74,223
1972 87,019
1973 123,019
1974 127,076
1975 181,677

From 1953 to 1972, management on Nature Conservancy preserves was handled
by a loosely knit network of volunteers. At the time of acquisition, an
individual was identified or a committee appointed who would attend to the
day-to-day stewardship needs associated with an area. Only on a few areas
did the Conservancy have an endowment large enough to hire a land steward
(Appendix H). This system of volunteers functioned adequately, and in
many cases outstandingly, with very little supervison over the years. The
foundation of the Conservancy's strong stewardship base of today was laid
during those early development years. The Nature Conservancy is unique
insofar as its local volunteer Stewardship Committees still accept the
crucial responsibility of actively safe-guarding for present and future
generations most of the natural land that the Conservancy has devoted
all its professional expertise and resources to acquire. Effective
utilization of these volunteers has been the key to the Conservancy's
stewardship success and has allowed them to provide care for over 650
separate management units with a minimum of financial resources.

However, as the Conservancy began to acquire and retain more and more
land, it gradually outstripped a total volunteer framework. In an
effort to meet its new stewardship responsibilities, the Conservancy
developed within a simple, straightforward, organizational framework,
an effective and efficient means of providing the stewardship nec-
cessary for its preserves. This framework called for a professional
National Director of Land Stewardship; professional Regional Land
Stewards for each of our four Regional Offices; Chapter Stewardship
Committees where Chapters exist; and local volunteer Stewardship
Committees which attend to day-to-day stewardship for individual
preserves. The responsibilities of each of these groups was detailed
on pages II-1 through II-5 (Appendix I) of the organization's Preserve
Management Manual drafted in 1972.

-75-

V. 1980 PROGRAM

In 1975, the Conservancy prepared and adopted a Long Range Plan which in-
cluded 1980 program objectives. The plan describes the mission of each pro-
gram, its organization in 1980, where they stood in 1975 in developement of
this program, the strategy for achieving the mission by 1980, and the pro-
jected cost. In stewardship, this program calls for developing a diversified
national preserve system by concentrating on the best preserves. Additional
resources are to be secured and applied to its best or "Model" preserves
with special emphasis on areas of national ecological significance where out-
standing programs and/or research can be accommodated. Loosely defined, a "Model"
preserve is an area which exemplifies the finest of Conservancy projects
from identification through acquisition and management. These are the ecologicallj
significant areas which the Conservancy would like to retain in its preserve
inventory. They should be unique in their natural qualities, be able to
maintain the integrity of the natural system over time, be relatively free
from human impact, and the Conservancy should possess the ability to
protect the area from destruction or alteration by man. These model
preserves would serve as outdoor laboratories for research on problems of
programmatic significance, house imaginative non-consumptive educational
programs, be provided the best possible care and protection, and become
centers for various forms of compatible public use.

VI. 1982 PROGRAM

The 1982 Long Range Plan continues to place increased emphasis on the
Conservancy's stewardship role within the organization. A greater percen-
tage of the organization's human and financial resources will be devoted
to the stewardship of its preserves and the developement and implementation
of use programs which complement the resource. By creating a selective preserve
portfolio and systematically making grants available for new and creative pro-
grams as well as the defense of preserves, the Conservancy hopes to demonstrate
it's reliability as an effective land steward.

Specifically:

1. The Conservancy will maintain a preserve portfolio of ecologically
significant preserves or, preserves with an effective man-
agement entity and scientific or educational use programs.

2. All Conservancy preserves will have adequate stewardship
programs and funding available to carry out the programs.

3. The stewardship of all TNC preserves transferred to other
agencies will be monitored, as applicable.

4. Develop model preserves where ever possible and create new
innovative programs to promote TNC's credibility as a reliable,
effective land steward.

5. Test, and if feasible develop a national educational use pro-
gram designed to utilize the capabilities of volunteers, in-
volving the local school system and local community in the
proper, non-destructive use of TNC preserves and to create
an awareness of TNC and the importance of natural diversity.

-76-I

6. Provide for the legal defense of Conservancy preserves
to protect TNC's credibility as a land steward and TNC's
real property tax exemption.
7. Develop a stewardship communications network to keep all
committees and. chapters informed of new programs and ideas.
VII. VIRGINIA COAST RESERVE OWNERSHIP CONSTRAINTS

The Title Search'section of the Legislative Compendium points out that
Parramore, Revel, Sandy and Cobb, have deed restrictions of various
duration which prohibit public use at this time. While these deed
restrictions present no problem in the protection of the islands by
The Nature Conservancy, they do represent potential stumbling blocks
in the types of programs which might be implemented under state and
I ~ ~federal ownership. The Parramore Island deed also contains the additional
restriction that should the Conservancy ever determine that it is in the
best interest of preservation and management of the property to transfer
I ~ ~~the island, it shall first consider as possible recipients the Common-
wealth of Virginia and the United States Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife (now the Fish and Wildlife Service).

I ~~~If the Conservancy decided to sell or transfer all or part of the
Virginia Coast Reserve, the organization would insist upon adequate
deed restrictions to guarantee the perpetual preservation of the resource
in its undeveloped and natural state.. A number of state and federal
*agencies expressed a reluctance to accept deed restrictions which may
obligate them to maintain a certain level of stewardship performance
I ~~~and prohibit them from exercising the operational flexibility that they
may need in the future should their agency or department undergo changes
in objectives or function.

Ship Shoal Island was used during World War II as an aerial bombing
range by the U.S. Navy on the basis of 1942 and 1945 permits issued by the
Commonwealth of Virginia. As a result of this action, unexploded ordnance
I ~ ~~is still found on. many parts of the island. Although these permits were
apparently invalid since Virginia did not own much of the land affected,
neither the State or U.S. government would agree to the costly and difficult
task of removing said explosives nor would they assume the liability for
any injury which might occur as a result of use of the island. This
has created an extremely dangerous situation that prohibits public use of
this fine natural area.

There still exists a major outstanding fundraising debt in excess of $450,000
on Smith Island. Until this money is raised, the Conservancy cannot
I ~~~transfer' this island by way of a gift, and it is doubtful that any
state or federal agency would be willing to purchase the island with the
deed restrictions that the Conservancy deems necessary. Several other
I ~ ~~islands also have key and bothersome in-holdings which the Conservancy
seems best equipped to acquire at this time. Several of these in-holdings
* ~~~are currently under negotiation.

I . ~~~~~~~~~~~-77-

VIII.-MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONSI

The easiest way for the Conservancy to insure that its preservation
objectives for the Virginia Coast Reserve are met over time is to retain
a major presence in the ownership of the system. To do this, the Conservancy
would have to identify a source of funding, since it could not rely
entirely on a volunteer stewardship unit to meet all the management3
needs of the islands and does not have the internal budgetary capabilities
to. absorb the program into its present operation. A study of.-similar
management units, both public and private, has indicated that minimum
annual operating cost would run about $50,000 per year in 1975 dollars
while the ideal annual budget would be $100,000 per year. The $50,000 budget
includes salaries for a land steward, maintenance person, secretary,
office expenses, and general maintenance and equipment costs. (See sampleI
budget in Stewardship Strategy Section.) These annual operating budget
figures are considerably less than budget figures for similar federal
and state areas since the Conservancy could offset some of its expensesI
through the use of volunteer resources. In addition, the Conservancy
would not be obligated, expected, or have the desire to provide many of
the facilities, programs and services that are traditionally associatedI
with publicly managed lands. Under Conservancy ownership and management
our highest and first priority would be the preservation of the resource.
Increased funding would provide for the development and implementation of
scientific research and educational use programs. Public enjoyment andI
use of the island resources would be accommodated once these early needs
are addressed.I

IX. CONCLUSIONS

Among the nearly 660 preserves still owned and managed by The Nature
Conservancy, there are a number of real jewels, and among these, the
Virginia Coast Reserve is in many ways the best. To our knowledge, it is
the largest preserve managed by a private group in the Atlantic coastal zone
where the pressure of development and rising land prices have made theI
establishment of such preserves increasingly difficult. Even in the
public sector there are very few coastal sanctuaries that rival this
33,000 acre natural area, and there are, of course, no duplicates. TheI
combination of private organizational ownership, the large size and
significance, and the fact that it is comprised of undeveloped barrier
islands which are increasingly rare and threatened resources make the
Virginia Coast Reserve the most potentially important private preserve
in the nation today for research, education, and the development of
stewardship tools. It is for these reasons, coupled with the way the
islands impact on the organizations long range "mde preserve"' program,I
that the Conservancy has decided to retain responsibility for the Islands'
stewardship.

The 18 month Virginia Coast Reserve Study has reinforced all our prior
belief about the high quality and significance of these islands and their
natural systems and has laid an important baseline for future research efforts. *
Building upon the perspectives engendered by these earlier studies, the-
Conservancy now has the opportunity and indeed a responsibility to see
that we do not now turn our attention form the barrier islands but actually

that we intensify our efforts.

-78- .

4 !~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~iw ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~

~~~~~~~~~~~fv i i'F F' 4F * ,

I1 t'F<....~F '''. d i

U FMI

FF~~l '~~ ~ ~ F F ''4'FF4F~~~~j ' F~~ d F~~ ~~F '4F''IF' .FF' 4~~~~~F'FF' 1FF4J?

~~~? frFFF 4F~~~~~'1 F FIF~~~~i~~I~~iF.I~~i~~~FFFF ,F IF~~~~~4IFFF'F~~~~l'FI~~~~FF'.~~~[ F '~~~ I:;~~~F~ ~~ F 444,FFF4:'.'4 4~~~~~i
F FFII4~~~~FF~~FFFFFFI,!F .F4 ~~~~~~~F~jF~~FF4~~~4 'F'Il~~~I'~~4 [ FI4FF.FFFI~~~~~~F'.FF~~~FIF4~~~F.F~~ ''*~~~'' F~~ F''4IFF'4 ~ ~ d
4 ~ F 14 F~4FIF4I~iIF,~I~i~i~iFFF .~4 F~~'1~FF~F F'~.FF4.F' F444~ F1~F.4I'F~F''4F~i4F4 FF4 I 'F~F'F~F4.I' 4.4
di* , ~ ~ F ~ ~ 4'F.F'FF.~4!FII: 4

FF,44'4F'.~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ F i

F FFFIFF~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~FFF4F.'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'4 4 '4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4~~~~~ ~~~~ F. ~ ~ ~ ~ i

~~4F'I..'FF,4F'4F4FFF4'F F{F F .1 F'4 ..FF!FI''F~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~d 4 F'IFFF~~~~~~~jFI;~~~~. Fi

4F~~.444,F.I, ~ ~ 4444F4' 4 ~~~44FI~~4 F~44. ..44F444F~~~FF ' ,F..44....,..4,4.F4F4.F~~~~~iF4 F4 ' FF~~ ~~.,1~FI4.~~~4F.Lh F F F , ''FFF~~~~i44 F'

F F' .4FFFFIFIIIF4I4 F 4~4F~44~j'4'4~'* 44F 4:p44~~.jF~, IFFF~I4~'FF F. FF'~,FF 4'4*4*~FIh4F F 'id, .,,. Fl

4 4~FF'~4'F~ ,4F F4~d1.4,F. 4lFF I F..44IFF FIFFIF F44 F '* '*'.

*:~~~~IF'F .'r'''F ' 4 FF:FF!FFFI F I'FI''FIFF FF F4IF4IIIIjF 4F'1 F''4''F!'' 4

F ' ~ ~ ~ F4 'F F~~~IF~~ii,FFiFFF, .' FFIF1FF4'

ir~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.,FFF44F,444F4F F

F ~ ~ 1 4F.l.~4.FF4FFF.F!FFrF.4~F 44' F'F'F'1:'7~F4:~I4FL F

.4FF~l I~FFF 'FF''~ F44iF4FFFFF1~i4F~l44 4F F 'FFFFFF~...I.4.FF.~FI~4IFFIII4F Fl ~ FFFIIFFI!FiFF.F,~l~i~i~ FFF F! F~FI~F~4IIFF~F4F;FF, . 4 .FFF.F4I! ~ F4 F4 'F 44'it FF 'FFF' .

SECTION CONTENTS

STEWARDSHIP STRATEGY

STEWARDSHIP SCHEME ............................................ .................81

PRESERVE OWNERSHIP .............................................................81

AGENCIES ANALYZED DURING THE VIRGINIA COAST RESERVE STUDY ......................82

National Park Service ................ .................... .......82
Fish and Wildlife Service ...............................................82
Virginia Division of Parks ...............................................82
Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries ............ ...82
Accomack-and Northampton Counties ........................................82
The Nature Conservancy ....................................................82

CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................83

VIRGINIA COAST RESERVE OFFICE ..................................................84

VIRGINIA COAST RESERVE OFFICE PROGRAMS .........................................84

Added Layers of Protection ...............................................84
Federal ............................................................84
State ..............................................................84
Local.........84
Local ........................................................8
Scientific Developments and Educational Opportunities ....................85
Island Use Program .......................................................85
Land Acquisition and Regional Development ................................85
'Integrated Barrier Island - Nature Conservancy Program ...................85

ESTIMATED BUDGETS ..............................................................87

Minimum Operating Budget .................................................89
Ideal Operating Budget...........91
Initial Expenditures.93

-79-

STEWARDSHIP SCHEME

This section of the Virginia Coast Reserve Study outlines significant findings,
decisions and proposed future involvement by The Nature Conservancy within the
Virginia Barrier Islands. Stewardship decisions for the Virginia Coast Reserve
are based on a synthesis of data obtained within the Virginia Coast Reserve
Study and presented-in four volumes: Ecosystem Description; Legislative Compen-
dium, Title Search and Acquisition Priorities; Social and Economic Analysis;
and Stewardship. This summary identifies the most important decisions and the
basis from which they were made.

The objective of the Conservancy's concern with the Virginia Barrier Islands is
the preservation of this unique natural system. To achieve this end, various
stewardship goals and priorities have been identified by the professionals asso-
ciated with the Virginia Coast Reserve Study. These goals include the acquisition
of additional islands, marshes and inholdings, preservation and restoration of
sensitive ecological components, dealing with human impact on the Reserve, ana-
lyzing and identifying government interests and their stewardship capabilities,
and proposing a plan for long term Conservancy involvement within the Virginia
Coast-Reserve.

The 18-month study of the Virginia Coast Reserve, made possible by the Mary Flagler
Cary Charitable Trust, has demonstrated the high quality, and significance of these
islands and their natural systems. Nothing quite.like them exists anywhere along
the U.S. coasts, though there are many other barrier islands stretching from New
Hampshire, around the Gulf of Mexico, to southern Texas. The precise mix of sea
and sand, biological organisms, coastal dynamics, and other system attributes are
not duplicated on any of the other islands. Of significant ecological importance
is the fact that the Virginia Barrier Island system is essentially preserved intact
through a unique cooperative effort of the private sector and dedicated institutions.
The islands' ecological significance combined with private ownership and management
provide a rare opportunity for the Virginia Barrier Islands to assume an even
greater role in future barrier island protection and stewardship in the wider
sphere of perpetuating natural ecological diversity and quality. The barrier
islands make a great contribution as a laboratory of sound ecological preservation
and management, and as a demonstration of the benefits which can be derived from
this practice.

I. PRESERVE OWNERSHIP

Further development of these parameters depends largely on the final ownership
of the Virginia Coast Reserve. Therefore, one of the most critical conclusions
reached through this study concerns the Reserve's final disposition. The decision
has been reached to retain the Virginia Coast Reserve under Nature Conservancy
stewardship. The management study analyzed seven entities' interest in the Reserve.
Agency objectives, authorizing authority, structure, plans, adjacent landholdings,
performance in similar circumstances, and ability and willingness to accept deed
restrictions or other assurances of management continuity were assessed. These
were compared to Virginia Coast Reserve preservation objectives and priorities
developed throughout other sections of this study. This systematic scrutiny
eliminated the possibility of land ownership at this time by all government
agencies except the Fish and Wildlife Service.

All the decisions affecting title transferability of the Virginia Barrier Islands
are subject to some intrinsic limitations. These include deed restrictions orI
financial debts which encumber several islands. The previous owners of Parramore,
Revel and Cobb Islands retained certain use rights, title to property,. or restric-
tions of title transfer to all or parts of their former land. Ship Shoal IslandI
is restricted through the liability of an unexploded ordinance remaining from the
area's former use as a bombing range. Funds used to purchase Smith Island from
The Nature Conservancy's Project Revolving Fund still represent a $450,000 out-I
standing debt. The title search also brought to light some other deed limitations
which may affect title transfer at this time.

II. AGENCIES ANALYZED DURING THE VIRGINIA COAST RESERVE STUDYI

A. U.S. DEPARTM4ENT OF THE INTERIOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: Virginia Coast
Reserve preservation objectives and the National Park Service's recreation
orientation do not mesh. Park Service representatives have stated that there
is no interest in a National Seashore complex for the islands by their agency
and no need for one based on existing regional facilities and recreationalI
demands. All past proposed National Seashore plans focused on Parramore
Island which has deed restrictions that preclude title transfer of this
island to the National Park Service at this time.3

B. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE, INTERIOR, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE: Preservation
objectives closely match The Nature Conservancy's. Federal enforcement
powers would help protect sensitive components of the system. Fish andI
Wildlife Service has given high priority to the acquisition of Atlantic
Coast wetlands to preserve critical black duck wintering habitat which
includes the salt marsh component of the Virginia Coast Reserve. ConcernI
over current funding and management problems of existing National Wildlife
Refuges, including several formerly transferred by The Nature Conservancy
to the Fish and Wildlife Service, dictates that firm commitments to proper
management be obtained before any sale or lease is negotiated with this
agency.

C. VIRGINIA DIVISION OF PARK~S: Objectives and performance of natural areasI
preservation coincide with The Naure Conservancy objectives. Lack of
funding for acquisitions and the belief of the Division that existing
security is offered by the Conservancy eliminates this Division's acqui-I
sition interest.

D'. VIRGINIA COMMAISSION OF CAME AND INLAND FISHERIES: Total Conservancy goals
and objectives for the Virginia Coast Reserve would probably not be met byI
this agency. Future cooperative management agreements may develop between
The Nature Conservancy and the Commission which would be beneficial to both.

E. ACCOMACK AND NORTHAMPTON COUNTIES: The Counties lack the capacity to fund
any major action regarding the Conservancy's holdings. They should not be
granted title to any of the Reserve's lands. Suitable arrangements may beI
worked out to accommodate some County sponsored public use.

F. THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: The Conservancy, having set the objectives of the
Virginia Coast Reserve's preservation, is most amenable to fulfilling them.
The Conservancy's physical presence would insure long-term adherance to
these objectives. In cooperation with state -and federal agencies, private
land stewardship can be explored, perhaps helping ameliorate some of the

deficiencies that exist in government land stewardship programs. The
Nature Conservancy presently is most familiar with the island system and
is emphasizing its self-appointed land stewardship role in keeping with its
Core Programs of 1980 and 1982. The Nature Conservancy has secured assurance
of multiple agency cooperation in its scheme, yet enjoys the lateral mobility
of administrative and stewardship procedures of a private, non-governmental
organization. Inter-agency layers of protection can be developed for the
island system by The Nature Conservancy. The Conservancy's major inadequacy
is the assurance of future stewardship funding.

III. CONCLUSIONS

Based on this evidence the Virginia Coast Reserve Study recommends that the
Reserve be maintained under Nature Conservancy stewardship and be developed as
a model preserve commensurate with long-term goals outlined in The Nature Con-
servancy's 1980 and 1982 Long Range Plans. This program identifies the greatest
disparity between the objectives defined in the 1980 Core Program and the current
situation; "It is in Preserve Management (now Land Stewardship) that we are
furthest from the 1980 Core program". Retaining control and administration of
the Virginia Coast Reserve would begin to counteract this deficiency.

Beaches, uplands and interior wetlands should be retained by The Nature Conservancy.
Salt marsh wetlands may be leased or purchased by the Fish and Wildlife Service
and managed as waterfowl refuge areas. The increased surveillance and enforce-
ment generated by this cooperative arrangement benefits the islands, yet enables
the Fish and Wildlife Service to avoid the management problems associated with
supervision of beach and upland recreation. The Nature Conservancy still would
maintain administrative responsibility for the system. Private ownership would
preventinon-compatible, increased public use of the system, which often accompanies
public ownership.

The Conservancy has a tremendous opportunity and, indeed, a responsibility to see
that we continue to focus our attention on the barrier islands, and that we in-
tensify our efforts in such a way that what has been accomplished so far has a
multiplying effect in helping us to achieve additional conservation objectives
both in the barrier islands and elsewhere. We have determined that the Conser-
vancy must retain ownership and management responsibilities in spite of the difficult
task this will set and the ease with which we might transfer these lands to another
agency for management. We. always retain the future option of transferring the
islands to some other agency if we determine that this would be in their best
interest. However, we have not found any agency which would be either perfectly
suitable, reliable or even more effective than the Conservancy is apt to be.
Combining these conclusions with the important opportunites represented by the
private sector management which continues the private sector action by which these
resources were preserved, and without which they would otherwise have certainly
been lost to the forces of development, we are determined to retain stewardship
responsibility for the islands.

One of the crucialreasons for the Conservancy's retaining ownership at this
time is the preservation of barrier islands is not yet assured. They are
threatened by the impending increased industrialization development on all or
parts of the Eastern shore. In spite of the financial uncertainties that may
plague private sector actions of this kind, the Conservancy is at least as able
to resist these pressures on and around the islands as any of the potential
alternative managers. However, it is the Conservancy's increasing conviction

-83-

that in the face of relentless pervasive pressures for land alteration in this
country, it is going to be necessary to pursue preservation objectives in a much
more comprehensive manner than we have in the pas t. Because of the size, scope
and conspicuously outstanding quality of the barrier islands, they represent
perhaps the best opportunity in the country today to act as a laboratory forI
experimenting with just such comprehensive preservation planning as it pertains
to the islands themselves, the region in which they are located and to barrier
islands generally as a particular ecological system more or less universally
affected by the same laws, practices and pressures.
IV. Virginia Coast Reserve Office1

This scheme would involve The Nature Conservancy as the immediate land steward
responsible for the islands' supervision. Duties of the Virginia Coast Reserve
office would switch from temporary, primarily academic orientation, to thoseI
associated with permanent land preservation. Information from similar federal
and private sanctuaries indicate that this would include increasing personnel,
housing, office space and equipment. The budget for this commitment would vary
according to the degree of emphasis placed on the preservation, research and
recreation ammenities of the islands. The proposed annual budget of $50,000,
Table 1, would provide for basic stewardship responsibilites, required research
and some financial flexibility to allow personnel to explore future acquisitionsI
and program development.

V. Virginia Coast Reserve Office Programs

Added to this basic stewardship program which surveys, manages and protects the3
Reserve, the program will expand to accomplish even greater objectives.

A. ADDED LAYERS OF PROTECTION: The preserve may additionally be protected with
several layers of overlapping, government sponsored protection. These are
primarily status designations which may be obtained while the islands remain
in Conservancy ownership. They include protection at various levels:3

1. Federal: a. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,
National Natural Landmark, National Environmental Education
Landmark.

b. U.S. Department of the'Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
Wetlands lease or easement agreement.3

c., U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Association, Marine or estuarine sanctuary.
2. State: a. State Water Control Board, critical groundwater area.

b. Division of Planning and Community Affairs, state critical
area, protected by the Coastal Zone Management Act.

c. Division of Game and Inland Fisheries, wetlands lease or
-easement agreement.I

3. Local: County land use plans-designation as critical environmental
areas.I

-84-I

(Additional protected designations are outlined in Volume II of this
I ~~~~study in the Legislative Compendium Section).

I n~. SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENITS AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES: The immense value
of the Virginia Coast Reserve as a living natural laboratory has barely
been realized. The research sponsored by the Virginia Coast Reserve Study
has awakened the scientific community to study possibilities available
nowhere else on the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Our work has shown that perhaps
the most stirring opportunities provided by the islands are in the fields of
future island preservation, island biogeography and ecosystem management
and restoration. As testimony to their value, universities, researchers
adbusinessmen have encouraged the Conservancy to retain ownership of the
~~~i s l nd and proceed in developing a Virginia Barrier Islands Research Con-
sortium (see Appendix). This facility would provide a nucleus for develop-
I ~ ~ment of undergraduate, graduate and post-graduate studies in environmental
processes of the coastal zone which would be applicable to broader scale
land use decisions throughout-this region.

I ~C. ISLAND USE PROGRAM: The value of the islands as a recreational asset will
incorporate planned compatible use programs for the islands. Various
methods of allocating this sparce resource. are proposed including mainten-
aneof existing, non-destructive, traditional use; cooperative regional
~~~~lni n g and organized recreational areas supervised by local. recreation
commissions; and, organized wilderness outiiigs for groups such as the
.Wlens Soc-iety, Sierra Club and Audubon Society.

D. LAND ACQUISITION AND REGIONAL -DEVELOPMENT: The ongoing identification and
acquisition of Eastern Shore natural areas would further stimulate the Con-
servancy' s already enormous own regional ecological protection. The impact
of the proposed Conservancy's office and island-related preservation acti-
vities will develop a following even further promoting the preservation
ofvital island and wetland areas by regional decision-makers.
Each of these tasks described above deserves a fuller explanation and consideration
of the resources and programs that will have to be developed in order to make them
possible. The fundamental resource for all these is the barrier islands themselves
in their pristine natural condition. Through our systematic work, and setting of
rational priorities both by the Conservancy and its cooperators, these islands have
been set aside as the most impressive privately managed natural area preserve in
the nation.

I ~E. INTEGRATED BARRIER ISLAND-NATURE CONSERVANCY PROGRAM: The number of
relevant Nature Conservancy activities which would both contribute to and
benefit from the full development of the Virginia Barrier Islands as the
I ~ ~~main Conservancy reserve for research development and application ar e
multi-dimensional.4

Barrier Islands and Other Islands: No other conservation organization
has attempted the land-conservation activities in which The Nature
Conservancy engages. Our accomplishments in the field of island preserva-
tion are substantial yet they are not nearly enough to act as a significant
counterweight to the pressure for land alteration which is resurging with
renewed force in coastal zones. We have had a particular focus within
our programs on the coastal zone and in the barrier islands alone we have
I ~~~acquired not only the Virginia Barrier Islands, but Wassaw, Wolfe and Egg
in Georgia, Turtle in South Carolina and tracts on Sanibel, St. Vincent,
Ten Thousand Islands, Jack's Island and Jupiter Islands in Florida and

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~-85-

Fire Island in New York. Among the non-sandy coastal islands we
have preserved over 40 acres on the Coast of, Maine, Hamilton Island
in the Chesapeake Bay, tracts on Nantucket and Martha's Vinyard in
Massachusetts, Horse Island in Connecticut, Lignumvitae Shell Key
and other tracts in the Florida Keys. The number of-coastal tracts
which are nearly islands or similar to islands and a number of inland
islands in lakes and rivers throughout the country is tremendous.

The Conservancy's interest in the coast 'goes far back in its organizationalI
history. In the early 1950's, critical coastal resources, such as salt marshes
and barrier islands and estuaries, had been identified as areas of concentration.
An inventory was begun in 1956 which is variously credited with sparking diverse
subsequent activity by other institutions and agencies, though the Conservancy's own
emerging programs emphasized protection through acquisition, as noted above. In
later years; inventory programs were initiated on the coast of Maine and in theI
Chesapeake Bay. Of the Conservancy's current eight State Natural Heritage
Programs, four of them are in coastal states where they have contributed to and
benefited from coastal zone management programs.3

This wide experience with island and coastal protection should be made use
of both by The Nature Conservancy and other cooperating conservation use groups.
Virginia Barrier Island stewardship and research programs would provide the
Conservancy with an excellent format for future concentration in this area. It
is our intent to further protection of the coastal zone through a concentrated
cooperative effort of conservationists based on The Nature C osrac's experience I
in the Virginia Barrier Islands.

-I

I:r

VIRGINIA COAST RESERVE
BUDGETS
The following budgets are comprised from information gathered on refuges
similar to the Virginia Coast Reserve throughout the Eastern Coastal
States. Analysis of data supplied by five federal National Wildlife
Refuges, two adjacent state game refuges, and one private refuge was
collected. This led to the construction of the minimum and ideal
operating budgets and the initial start-up costs which are presented below.

-87-

I.f~ / Y~VIRGINIA COAST RESERVE

MINIMUM OPERATING BUDGET

Estimated In 1975 Dollars

ANNUAL EXPENSES

I. SALARIES

Refuge Manager $ 13,000
Benefits 12% 1,560

Patrol/Maintenance Person 8,400
Benefits 12% 1,008

Secretary (2/3 time) 4,000
Benefits 12% 480

TOTAL $ 28,448

II. OFFICE OPERATION

Rental 2,400

Utilities 1.500

TOTAL $ 3,900

III. OFFICE EXPENSES

Telephone $ 1,000

Travel 1,500

Postage 200

Printing 500

Meetings & Conventions 200

Insurance (boats, vehicles, etc.) 700

Office Supplies 500

Publications 300

Equipment Expenses 50

TOTAL $ 4,950

-89-

i*~~ ~MINIMUM OPERATING BUDGET CONTINUED

ANNUAL EXPENSES

IV. REFUGE TRANSPORTATION

Truck Depreciation $ 1,000
(1 vehicle, 6 year life, $6,000 new)

Truck: Fuel, Maintenance (1 vehicle) 1,100

Boat (1 boat, 10 year life, $3,500 new) 350

Motor (1 motor, 3 year life, $1,500 new) 500

Boat: Fuel, Maintenance 900

Miscellaneous Boat Expenses 500

Plane Rental (twice a month @$25/hr.) 650

TOTAL $ 5,000

V. RESEARCH PROGRAMS
(Annual Research Necessary to Manage Islands)'/

*Breeding Bird Survey (Identify &
monitor annual changes & locations
to pinpoint sensitive areas)

*Geological Process Monitoring Program

*Deer Population Surveys on
Parramore & Smith Islands

*Study methods & determination of cost
for exotic species eradication (e.g.
pheasants, blacktailed jack rabbits,
feral livestock, Russian thesil, etc.)

*Ecosystem Restoration (e.g. cattle
& sheep damage on Hog Island)

TOTAL $ 4,000

VI. CONTINGENCY FUND $ 2,500

TOTAL BUDGET $ 48,798

I/Supplemental Fundraising Needed

-90-

VIRGINIA COAST RESERVE

IDEAL OPERATING BUDGET

Estimated in 1975 Dollars

ANNUAL EXPENSES

I. SALARIES

Refuge Manager $ 17,600
Benefits 12% 2,102

Administrative Assistant 14,000
Benefits 12% 2,680

Patrol/Maintenance Person 8,400
Benefits 12% 1,008

Secretary (2/3 time) 4,000
Benefits 12% 480

TOTAL $ 50,270

II. OFFICE OPERATION

Rental $ 2,400

Utilities 1,500

TOTAL $ 3,900

III. OFFICE EXPENSES

Telephone $ 2,000

Travel 2,000

Postage 200

Printing 500

Meetings & Conventions 200

Insurance (boats, vehicles, etc.) 700

Office Supplies 500

Publications 300

Equipment Expenses 50

TOTAL $ 6,450

IDEAL OPERATING BUDGET CONTINUED

IV. REFUGE TRANSPORTATION

Truck Depreciation $ 2,000
(2 vehicles, 6 year life, $6,000 new)

Truck: Fuel, Maintenance (2 vehicles) 2,200

Boats (2 boats, 10 year life, $3,500 new each) 700

Motor (2 motors, 3 year life, $1,500 new each) 1,000

Boat: Fuel, Maintenance 900

Miscellaneous Boat Expenses 500

Plane Rental (twice a month @$25/hour) 1,300

TOTAL $ 8,600

V. TNC SPONSORED PROGRAMS AND RESEARCH
(Annual Research Necessary to Manage Islands)

�Breeding Bird Survey (Identify and monitor annual
changes and locations to pinpoint sensitive areas)

�Geological Process Monitoring Program

�Deer Population Surveys on Parramore and Smith
Islands

�Study methods and determine cost of eradicating
exotic species (e.g. pheasants, blacktailed jack
rabbits, feral livestock, Russian thesil, etc.)

�Ecosystem Restoration (e.g. cattle and sheep
damage on Hog Island)

TOTAL $ 20,000

VI. LEGAL FUND $ 3,000

VII. CONTINGENCY FUND $ 5,000

TOTAL BUDGET $ 97,220

-92-

VIRGINIA COAST RESERVE

INITIAL EXPENDITURES

Estimated in 1975 Dollars

Land and Buildings*

Maintenance Building $10,000

Second Boat and Motor 5,000

Island Patrol Vehicle 2,000

Radio System (Ship-to-Shore) 5,000

Camera 250

Dictating Equipment 500

Typewriter 700

Office Furniture 525

TOTAL $29,275

*It is the Conservancy's intention to maintain a long term presence in the
Eastern Shore of Virginia. Therefore, we will be looking for a convenient
location to establish an office and resident caretaker facility within easy
access to the water. In the long run, this site could also serve as an
Ecological Research Station for the host of colleges, universities and
independent researchers who have expressed an interest in studying the islands.
Cost of this acquisition is not yet known since the site has not been identified.

v:, [!III!~~
Ecological.~~~~~~7

Considerations.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

iz~~ apI

*I 04 '" xii

!!Canyon jili~
;wT~~~~~~~
Milan~ ~~~

JO ji~~ jj~ot~ii
Brazilian~~
6~~~~~~
11 1{ I I. I II~~i!!

I ~~~~~~~~~~~SECTION CONTENTS

3 ~~~~~~~~~ECOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

3 ~~ECOLOGICAL. CONSIDERATIONS............................97

SOILS AN~D GEOLOGY ........................I........97

I ~~~Soilsi.................................97
Geology .................................98

3 ~~VEGET.ATION ...................................99

Sensitive Communities ..........................100
Sensitive Species ......... ................101
Aquatic Systems.................................102
Forest Succession ............................103
Coastal Plantings.............................103
I ~~~Hu-man. Influences.............................104
Vanished Natural Components ....................104
Introduced S pecies.........................104

TERR~ESTRIAL. VERTEBRATES ............................105

Mammals~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.....105
I ~~~~~Exotic' Species...........................105
Native Species...........................107
3 ~~~Reptiles and Amphibians ..110............. .......

1 ~~GENERAL THREATS ......................I...........115

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).......................115
3 ~~~Delmarva Waterway ............................118

FUTUE RESEARCH.................................121

I ~~ISLAND USES. ...................................124

3 ~~SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH...............................124

RECREATION ...................................125

3 ~~GOVERNMHENT PROGRAMS ...............................125

Federal ........ &..........4...............125.
State . .......................... :... .....126
Local . ............................. .....126
3 ~~PROHIBITED USES ...-...............................126

PERMIT SYSTEM .................................127

I ~~~~~~~~~~~-95-

CONTENTS (continued)

REFERENCES ....................................................... ...........129

TABLES

Table 1, Recommended Future Research...................................122

FIGURES

Figure 1, Atlantic Hypothetical Drilling Sites .........................119
Figure 2, Delmarva Waterway ............................................120

MAP LEGEND ...................................................................133

MAPS (follow page 133)

Metomkin Island
Cedar Island
Parramore, Revel Islands
Hog, Rogue Islands
Cobb Island
Ship Shoal, Godwin, Myrtle, Mink Islands
Smith Island

APPENDIX

Consortium Letters of Support .............. ....................Appendix J

-96-

ECOLOGICAL CONS IDERATIONS

The Nature Conservancy must insure the protection of the Virginia Barrier
Islands. Portions of the Virginia Coast Reserve Study were designated to identify
I ~ ~the islands' operationally significant, ecologically sensitive components.
These parameters measure the systems" integrity. Efforts to protect the islands'
natural diversity hinge on them.

The Con'servancy's natural area philosophy emphasizes preserve stewardship rather
than preserve management. This subtle difference stresses a laissez-faire
approach to the preservation of natural areas. Land stewards are the overseers
of natural processes. Their efforts are directed to preserve natural area
resources and to interfere with existing processes only benignly or beneficially.
Benign intervention includes properly structured research, educational, or
recreational~uses. Beneficial intervention includes protective or restorative

Historically, human influence of the islands has been very pervasive and has
interfered with existing natural systems frequently. This wide-spread influence
is detailed in The Ecosystem Description Volume of the Virginia Coast Reserve
Study under Section One, Land Use History - A Study of Man's Influence on the
Virginia Barrier Islands. The Conservancy's program of protecting natural systems
includes the manipulation of existing human-induced habitats into more natural
ones as well as monitoring indicative processes in existing natural environments.
I ~ ~This Ecological Considerations Section relies on the information produced in
other parts of the Virginia Coast Reserve Study, particularly The Ecosystem
Description, documents prepared by various contractors, and independent sources.
It outlines the information which supports a plan for resource stewardship.
Ecological sensitivity maps accompany this text at the end of this section.
* ~~They define portions of the Virginia Coast Reserve which are considered sensitive
to human disruption. With time, these maps will require revision as these
areas change with the shifting barrier island resource. The theory behind a
barrier island stewardship plan endures longer than the absolute location of
U ~ ~some of the areas it is designed to protect. The following text deals with
selected components of the Virginia Coast Reserve system and identifies their
3 ~~sensitive aspects.

I. SOILS AND GEOLOGY

The soil and geological systems of the Virginia Coast Reserve are the substrate
for the development of the islands' natural communities. The three are
inextricably linked. Disturbance of one a ffects the other. This section deals
with the properties of the soils themselves which make them susceptable to
environmental alteration and the Geological considerations of Preserve Stewardship.
This includes the effects that disturbance of some associated biotic communities
have on soil types. Soils And Geological processes may dictate the sensitivity
of portions of the reserve.,

A. Soils

Beach soils are not particularly sensitive to disturbance from the human
activity normally associated with the barrier islands, excluding motor

-97-

vehicle traffic. They resist permanent soil compaction. Their apparent
resilience may be compounded by associated biological communities. They
support communities of terrestrial arthropods andcrustacea which are
susceptible to extensive beach traffic. Beaches often provide nesting
habitat for a variety of ground-nesting birds. This aspect of their
sensitivity is treated later within this section.

Corolla soils have a surface layer of fine sand that is especially
susceptible to wind erosion. They are generally well'vegetated with plants
that resist deflation. When unvegetated, they are subject to severe wind
erosion. Excessive traffic or disturbance to this soil results in the
deterioration of the protective plant cover and leads to erosion. Soil
scientists of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service observed ongoing wind
erosion in sparsely vegetated locations (Cullipher, 1976). The overwash
phase of the corolla soil is often selected by beach nesting bird species
for breedingsites. Colonizing plant species established here provide
resistance to overwash and require protection from beach traffic. The
entire corolla series is subject to use limitations partially due to
frequent tidal flooding and partially due to sensitive, tenuously vegetated
areas. These later regions are defined later in this section.

Duckston soils are not particularly sensitive to research, educational,
or light recreational use. Their suitability to all of these uses is
restricted by flooding and wetness.

Newhan soils have a loose surface layer of pale brown sand. They occupy
upland portions of the islands as dunes. The loose soil is very susceptible
to wind erosion. Vegetation cover varies and some types are more sensitive
to disturbance than others. These areas are all vulnerable to overuse and
should be protected, especially along frontal dunes and steep slopes.

Sulfaquent soils are primarily the tidal marsh soils of the Virginia
Coast Reserve characterized by 0.75% or greater sulfur content. They are
broadly divided into two groups: silty sulfaquents, the dominant component,
and sandy sulfaquents. Sulfaquents can withstand most of the use activities
they have traditionally supported. The soils are most sensitive to disturbance
due to dredging. Soils scientists who conducted the field survey for the
Conservancy caution that disturbance of the silty sulfaquents, such as
accompanies dredging, would be detrimental to shellfish and other benthic
fauna. The fine particles of this soil remain in suspension for long periods,
are subject to movement by tidal action and may cover bottom organisms.
Sulfaquents must be kept flooded to maintain soil pH in the neutral to
slightly alkaline range. When the soils are drained, as from marsh drainage
or dredging, sulfides oxidize and soils become acidic (pH 3) (Cullipher, 1976).

These same scientists .cautioned against the sensitivity of all island soils
to vehicular traffic which destroys vegetation, thereby aggravating wind
erosion or compacting soils.

B. Geology

The geological processes operating within the reserve are responsible for
the frequent, rapid ubiquitous changes in island position, size, shape
and number. It has been pointed out in the geological section of Volume I
that perhaps the greatest problem in stewardship of this coastal system is

-98-

the discrepency between the predominant physical processes operating within
the reserve and the legal system which legislates these processes. Specific
management recommendations are elaborated on in Volume I. The most pressing
sensitivities here are in the realm of establishing ownership of newly
emergent islands within the Virginia Coast Reserve system. There is
substantial geological justification for claiming that new ebb tide delta
islands will emerge adjacent to the northern shores of Hog, Cobb and
Myrtle Islands. These islands will eventually merge with their barrier
island neighbor. Legal frame work should be developed to assimilate these
into the reserve system quickly. Similarly flood tide delta and inlet islands
should be assimilated as soon as possible. These often retain their
autonomy from other islands, not merging with them, and may become major
barrier islands themselves. Monitoring of these processes and actions
on existing newly emerged islands are imperative.

The Conservancy should adopt a deliberate policy of minimum interference
with the natural geological processes acting on the islands. By publicizing
this prpgram and its active components it will begin to establish a widespread
local understanding of the processes acting upon the islands. This will help
avoid a direct conflict between preservation of the natural system and
arbitrarily attempting its stabilization.

There are several sensitive areas defined by the geological analysis.
Inlets can be expected to break through at the Mud Hole on Smith Island,
south-of the midpoint of Cobb Island and south of the marsh on Cedar Island.
No permanent facilities should be established at these areas nor should
they be dependent on access across them. Overwash deposits frequently bury
commercial shellfish grounds to the rear of many islands. Efforts should
be made to prevent this from happening by establishing marsh grass plantings
on these deposits. Dredge spoils frequently a by-product of dredging
activities,can best be disposed of in an ecologically sound manner by
beach nourishment projects, provided the material is of the proper grain
size and is uncontaminated. Projects should also consider the special
sensitivities of other natural components of the island systems. This
helps eliminate spoil disposal problems in wetland areas. These agreements
should be considered only when the Conservancy does not oppose the actual
dredging project on other grounds.

II. VEGETATION

The plant community associations of the Virginia Coast Reserve are the result
of interaction between natural and human influences. The barrier islands'
vegetation conforms with the long-term natural stresses of the island system.
Species are adapted to cope with such natural events as burial, overwash,
and physiological drought. Human induced perturbationsof this natural scheme
have not evolved as a part of the system. As a result, they are often disruptive
to natural processes. Human influence on the islands' vegetation has most often
resulted from livestock grazing, fires, and traffic (Volume I, Section 1).

Certain portions of the islands' plant communities are more ecologically
sensitive than others. These areas are shown on the appended maps. The following
section identifies community types and individual species which should be given
special protection. Much of this material is derived from Volume I, and
McCaffrey (1975).

-99-

A. Sensitive Communities

The upland vegetation cover types which are extremely sensitive are the
foredune grassland (A), sparse grassland (g), and foredune-sparse grassland
(Ag). They require protection from trampling caused by pedestrians, vehicles,
or livestock. These areas are often recovering from sand burial. Successful
plant establishment is important in capturing and maintaining sand, temporarily
stabilizing it. Traffic in these regions can uproot vegetation or damage
the fragile spreading root system responsible for the plants' sustenance
and sand binding ability. Pressure on the soil above their roots breaks the
plants' life support system. The grasses die and the dunes are exposed to
the erosive forces of the wind. This leads to the deflation of these areas,
a situation known as dune "blowout". Blowouts are caused by human or livestock
trafficking across these areas on foot or by vehicle (Normann, 1975). Livestock
either graze or trample the plants, thus damaging them. A specific discussion
of the effects of grazing on salt marshes and sand dunes follows in the portion
of this section dealing with exotic mammal species. These communities
can sustain some occasional pedestrian traffic. To protect them from abuse,
vehicles should be prohibited from the islands and visitors cautioned to
avoid these areas. When extensive foot and motor vehicle traffic must
cross these areas, it is best to funnel them through recent overwash regions.

Several wetland mapping units are vulnerable to a lesser degree. These
include the upper (Mm) and lower (m) salt marshes, brackish (M) and fresh
(F) marshes and salt flat (s) edges. These correspond to the preserve's
drainages, wetlands, and tidelands and are generally recognized as vital
areas of special ecological value requiring protection (Clark, 1974). They
are not as susceptible to pedestrian traffic as the formerly mentioned
areas due pattly to their higher resiliency and partly because they are
less attractive for intensive recreation. Pedestrian traffic is permissible
but livestock grazing and vehicle traffic are damaging to the species'
composition and community substrate.

Dredging and ditching pose a serious threat to parts of the preserve's wetlands.
Salt marsh components of the system are particularly sensitive to these
practices. They directly destroy portions of these productive communities
permanently and are diametrically opposed to The Nature Conservancy's goals
for the Virginia Coast Reserve. They should be precluded from any portion
of the preserve. The deposition of dredge spoil represents a secondary
effect of this activity. This material may be silty or sandy (Cullipher, 1976).
Alternatives for its disposal include beach nourishment, marsh development,
volunteer marsh creation, and refuge island creation (Department of the
Army, 1976; Gilchrist, 1975).

Marsh development and volunteer marsh creation describe attempts to deposit
spoil on areas that do not support salt marsh vegetation and either create
marsh by planting cordgrass sprouts or allow marsh to develop naturally at
these sights. These efforts have failed to date due to erosion caused by
tides and wind and grazing by waterfowl. Investigators are exploring the
possibility of stabilizing these silty'materials with shell retaining walls
and silt-ban curtains. Refuge island creation is a concept designed to
provide refu5e for clapper rails during high tides and storms. During
these periods, the birds have historically suffered large population
losses. Creating spoil islands on existing marshes would provide refuge
for the rails during these times. This option provides an attractive

alternative for wildlife managers. It would foster higher harvestable
supplies of rails to the hunter. Manipulating natural systems, however,
is not part of the Conservancy' s land stewardship policy. Accordingly,
refuge islands should not be built on the Virginia Coast Reserve's marshes.

Beach nourishment describes the deposition of sandy spoil material on upland,
usually ocean front lands. It is a temporary method of ameliorating the
symptoms of the island erosion. The practice apparently has few detrimental
consequences to vegetation when correctly done. Unfortunate instances of
disruption of beach nesting birds have occurred associated with this practice.
This disposal method could be tolerated with the Virginia Coast Reserve
I ~~~provided it resulted from only the dredging maintenance of the existing
waterways and does not provide areas for disposal of the spoil resulting
from newly authorized projects. These seemingly beneficial spoil disposal
I ~~~projects are often used as pawns to avert opposition to proposed dredging
projects. Discussions with National Wildlife Refuge managers have indicated
a distrust of agreements between preserve managers and the U.S. Army Corp of
I ~ ~~Engineers, the agency responsible for spoil deposition. Past performance
indicates these arrangements are often difficult to mesh with refuge objectives.
The Conservancy should oppose these schemes when they are disruptive to
natural communities or are used as justification for dredging operations
which may be detrimental to the preservation of the Virginia Coast Reserve.
B.Sensitive Species

In addition to community types, there are seIveral individual plant species
which merit special stewardship within the reserve. The Virginia Barrier
I ~~~Islands occupy a half-way position on the Atlantic Coastal Plain. The
islands contain species populations that represent the limits of, or are
disjunct groups of major plant populations to the north, south, or west.
These island populations are important representatives of species living at
the edge of their range. They may be surviving at the limit of their
adaptability. Under these conditions these species provide insight into
the organisms' ecological amplitude (Jenkins, 1974). Each individual
I ~~~plant is particularly important, as it represents an inordinately important
portion of the total species' ecological and genetic adaptability. A
few plants or even a single individual naturally occurring at a range limit
I ~~~or as an outlier population is more important than entire aggregates within
the normal range of the species. Community associations of range limit
and outlier species with the typical biota of this region and the outliers
and range limits of other regions are unique among the Virginia Barrier
Islands. Volume I contains a complete list of these plant species. Locations
of particularly sensitive individuals, groups or cover-types are
* ~~~considered here.

1. Parramore Island: The interior open dune system at the northern
end of the island is unique within the Virginia Coast Reserve. Such
I ~ ~~unvegetated regions of other coastal islands are mobile and threaten
other island communities and features with burial. This region on
Parramore is a static one and shows no evidence of shifting. It is
protected from, the influence of wind by seaward vegetation. The area
should be protected from undue disturbance to prevent mobilizing the
sand. The present jeep trail through the area is not causing damage.
Ef forts should be made to insure that no departure f rom the trail is made
in-the future.
2. Revel Island: Several individuals of Ilex vomitoria, yaupon, occur
on the southern end of the island's western ridge. These individuals appe ar
-101-

to be the northernmost. extension, of the species. There is little
human activity in the area. The major threat to these shrubs is from
a small band of feral sheep which is established on the island. They
should be removed to prevent alteration of the vegetation community in
general and damage to the yaupon specifically.

3. Hog Island: Uniola paniculata, sea oats, has been reported from
Hog Island (Harvill, 1974). It has been reported for only two other
Virginia Barrier Islands, Smith (McCaffrey, 1975), and Assateague (Bauman, 1971
The sites represent the northern limit of this species' range. On
Hog Island, they are endangered from vehicle activity and livestock
grazing. Both of these uses should be discontinued. Human use of the
immediate vicinity of the sea oats should be avoided.

4. Rogue Island: Physalis viscosa ssp. maritima, ground cherry, occurs I
in the small foredune grassland on the eastern point of the island. This
is probably the northern limit for this species. The island receives
little human use and the species should be preserved via normal Conservancy
stewardship practices.

5. Myrtle Island: Ground Cherry occurs here too in the foredune grassland.
The same precautions observed on Rogue Island apply.

6. Smith Island: Two significant northern outlier plant species grow
on the island: Quercus virginiana, live oak, and Uniola paniculata,
has sea oats. The location of the species has been pinpointed. Two
individuals of oaks were located and specimens verified on one of the
island's upland ridges (Cullipher, 1975). The sea oats occur in four
small patches within the foredune grassland at the island's southern
end. This region should be protected from vehicles and trampling. The
island receives some motor vehicle traffic and human use due to an !
inholding located near the Cape Charles Lighthouse. Efforts should be
made to minimize the effect of this holding.

Aquatic Systems

Surface water and its associated vegetation communities are acutely sensitive
to human alteration of the surrounding environment. Changes in water quality
and quantity resulting from human activities such as road building, drainage
system alteration and septic systems can affect the biotic communities
associated with aquatic systems (Hillestad, 1975). A thorough investigation
into the islands' surface water regimes was beyond the scope of the Virginia
Coast Reserve Study. These systems can be protected by regulating human
activities on the islands which have the potential to disturb them. These
include fires and alteration of drainage regimes. Most surface water systems
within the reserve can support the limited human activity they presently
receive. The natural drainage and salinity of Goose Lakes and the next
easterly slough on Parramore Island have been affected by the construction
of the road which leads from Club House Gut to the beach. Restoration of
these areas should include cleaning and maintenance of existing culverts
and addition of more where necessary.

The major human activity associated with surface water systems is waterfowl
hunting. In areas where this occurs, feeding waterfowl may ingest the lead
shot and develop systemic lead poisoning (Kimball, 1975). Motor vehicles
have sometimes been used to reach surface water areas; in so doing they
damage surrounding soils and yegetation. Compaction of this substrate

-102-

changes its drainage regime and reduces its porosity, water retention capa-
bility, plant cover and sub-soil fauna. To avoid these problems, hunters
retaining rights to shoot over the interior waters of the reserve should
be requested to use steel shot and to avoid ecologically sensitive areas
7when using motor vehicles.

D. Forest Succession

The pure pine forest on Parramore Island's Italian Hill generates speculation
concerning ecological succession. Sparse regeneration of trees beneath
this stand has fostered speculation concerning this cover type's eventual
fate.' Some investigators feel that a dense pine needle litter, insufficient
seed source, dense overhead canopy and excessive browsing are restricting
successful regeneration of the dominant loblolly pine in this cover type.
This has lead to the speculation that this pine forest will succeed to a
complex dominated by wax myrtle, redbay, American holly, and sassafras
(McCaffrey, 1975). Examination of the same site leads other qualified
personnel to the assumption that the edaphic climax will be a "permanent
reproducing pine type" (Steirly,'1975). (Appendix Vol. I.) All researchers
agree that seedling mortality resulting from deer browsing is at least
partly responsible for the lack of seedling success within the forest (1. Folk,
1975; 2. McCaffrey, 1975; 3. Steirly, 1975; 4. Williams, 1975). Large
numbers of feral goats previously browsed the island during the 1940's.(Volume II
Section 1). This must have also put an inordinate pressure on establishment
'of seedlings, yet today's cover type has successfully developed. (Stewardship
suggestions concerning the islands' deer herd follow on later pages).
Various manipulative management suggestions have been proffered to foster
either the maintenance of the existing cover type or the establishment of
a more "desirable" hardwood climax type. There are additionally other
arguments favoring the maintenance of the existing pine-dominated forest.

Hillestad-et al.(1975) states that certain pine forests in the southeast
are maintained by fire. In Volume I, Section 1, it is noted that Parramore
Island was affected by two such fires in the 1920's. It has probably
experienced many more historically. The apparent effect of the first of
these fires was destruction of underbrush. Damage to the large trees was
minimal. This report is consistent with Komarek's (1962, 1964) hypothesis
that pine-dominated forests and their associated herbaceous flora are
successional systems maintained for long periods by fire.

The consensus of opinion concerning Parramore's pure pine forest appears
to be that the pure pine forest historically was successful in establishing
and maintaining itself on the island, and will continue as the predominant
cover when the philosophy "...why not let it go to Nature..." (Steirly, 1975)
is followed. There is apparently little need for manipulation of this cover
type to insure its maintenance.

E. Coastal Plantings

Coastal plantings are often successful in arresting sand from blowing and
washing. The short term effects of these stabilizations appear to have no
detrimental effect on other portions of the islands' communities and are
more amenable to preservation of the islands' natural processes than are
"structural solutions" to these same processes. Plantings inoffensive or

-103-

perhaps constructive to the islands' integrity, are also very visible public
relations tools which foster community cooperation in efforts to arrest-
erosion. Detailed analysis and recommendations concerning the geological
processes of the Virginia Coast Reserve are dealt with-in Volume I. Plantings
might be considered to stabilize unvegetated overwash, dune, and mudflatI
areas.. Plant materials suited to propagation on each of these areas are
Spartina patens, Ammophila breviligulata, and Spartina alterniflora. The
necessary requisites for successful establishment of these species on suchI
barren areas are complex. These stabilization efforts would most likely
serve more as a public relations prop than as a real solution to barrier
island regression.

P. Human Influences and Remedies

The plant communities of the Virginia Coast Reserve have enjoyed unparalleled
protection as a barrier island system. Existing stewardship problems are not
extensive. Most ecologically sensitive areas are undisturbed. Exceptional
species are not being unduly pressured. A handful of low intensity humanI
induced problems plague the reserve and its sensitive plant associations.
These include damage from vehicle use, livestock grazing, deer browsing,
and human induced fire hazard. Control of these sporadic but persistentI
problems should protect the islands' flora.

1. Vanished Natural Components

As with most components of relatively natural systems along the
east coast, vegetation species composition of the Virginia Coast
Reserve has been influenced unnaturally. There are no knownI
instances of plant species being extirpated from the reserve;
however, the influence of human activity has been long term and
pervasive. Section I of the Ecosystem Description Volume elaborates I
on practices which may have disrupted original plant communities.
Speculation about their effects on original species composition
remains conjectural. This lack of evidence leads to the conclusion
that no restorative measures should be considered to reintroduceI
plant species to the Virginia Coast Reserve. The most profound
effect on local species may result from local extinctions due to
the dynamic influences of natural events.
2. Introduced Species

Introduced plant species have the potential to affect both plant
and animal community composition and natural processes in unpredictable
ways. Ranwell (1975) states that an introduced alien burr (Acaena
anserinifolia) is responsible for reducing ground nesting birds'
reproductive success in Europe. The burr clogs fledglings' feathers,
restricts their movement, and inhibits feeding. The effect of
exotic plants within the Virginia Coast Reserve was not a topic ofI
research for this study and has not been assessed. No blatant
examples of thieir adversely influencing the islands were noted.
These species are enumerated in the Ecosystem Description volumeI
of this study. Future observers should help monitor the species'
effects on the islands. The eradication of such species might prove
rather ardous. Although they may be allowed to exist within the reserve,I
future introductions should be prevented.m

-104-

III. TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATES

The terrestrial vertebrate component of the barrier island system includes mammals,
reptiles, and amphibians, a varied group capable of directly or indirectly influencing
other components of the ecosystem. In turn, they are particularly susceptible
to the effects of habitat modification since they are more or less restricted
to the islands by physical or behavioral constraints. These natural and
introduced terrestrial vertebrate fauna have been enumerated in the Ecosystem
Description Volume of this Study. The naturally occurring species are best
protected through a program of habitat maintenance. This can be assured through
total protection of existing natural components of the system, restoration 6f
compatible eradicated components and removal of exotics which influence other
native plant and animal species unnaturally. This program allows for temporary
manipulative modification of some islands' systems in order to restore them
to their original integrity.

A. Mammals

The sixteen mammalian species of the reserve show one of the most persistent-
effects of human influence. Interspersed with the native island fauna
are five introduced mammals: the domestic cow and sheep, California jack
rabbit, house mouse, and Norway rat. Five naturally occurring large mammal
species have been partially or entirely extirpated from the peninsula-barrier
;island complex. These include the black bear, gray wolf, bobcat (Steirling,
1903; Upshur, 1900; Handley, 1975), red fox, and puma. The first three
/species are historically recorded for the Eastern Shore peninsula. Black
bears have actually been documented on the islands. The red fox has been
persecuted on several of the islands and may have been eliminated from
all but one.

One endemic sub-species, the Smith Island cottontail rabbit, occurs only
within the Virginia Barrier Islands. This sub-species' limited range
warrants it special stewardship consideration.

t. Exotic Species

The intentionally introduced domestic livestock on the islands
present the most obvious affront to the preservation of the
islands as a natural system. Both domestic cattle and sheep
occur on Hog Island. A small band of sheep also live on Revel
Island. No specific information was gathered about the impact
of these large herbivores on the structure and diversity of the
islands' systems during this study. Virtually all of the Virginia
Barrier Islands have been used historically for livestock grazing.

Extrapolating effects from other coastal islands, sand dunes,
and salt marshes indicate that cattle and sheep have affected
the naturally occurring flora and fauna here and if allowed to
continue, will do so increasingly. Hillestad et al (1975) have
documented a pronounced browse line, overgrazed, grasslands, and
reduced plant species diversity on.Cumberland Island, Georgia, due
to feral livestock. Cattle traversing dune areas, consuming plants,
and trampling stab ilizing vegetation have also initiated extensive
and massive dune shifting. Cattle on this island compete with
the island's deer herd for browse and forage and are the main
host for parasites of deer (Dictyocaulus viviparus and 1arnonchus
contortus). Ranwell (1975) states that cropping of salt marsh

-105-

vegetation by domestic grazing animals has strongly influenced
many salt-marshes along the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts of North
America. These activities have affected both the physical
environment of the marsh and its species composition. Spartina
marshes have been replaced by other species and the rate of marshI
aggradation has been changed by sheep grazing. He also contends
that both cows and sheep are particularly damaging to sand dunes.
A cow's hoof exerts 40-60 lbs. per in.2 of pressure and a sheep's
exerts 25-35 lbs. per in.2. Typically, a cow will trod its pasture
land three to four times per year and a sheep will do so six to
ten times per year. These pressures and frequencies are particularly
damaging to fragile sand dune vegetation. This evidence and theI
the suspicion that the islands "....can be managed either as a seagoing
pasture or as a barrier island nature preserve, but not as both."
(Dueser, 1976) warrants the removal of the feral animals soon.I
Provision should be made to allow for study of the influence they
have had on the island ecosystem prior to and after their removal.
This information would be useful in assessing the extent of present
and historical livestock influence on other coastal systems and
add to the literature of ecosystem restoration.-

The California Jack Rabbit documented on Cobb and Little CobbI
Islands, and perhaps occurring on Rogue and Hog Islands (Weske, 1976)
is another introduced species which evidence indicates may damage
the island system. No systematic information was gathered duringI
this brief study to support this contention. Information from
other analogous situations reports that extensive feral rabbit
grazing in Europe was responsible for the structure of the sand
dune vegetation communities there. More intensive grazing of the
sward regions triggered uncontrolled mobility of the sand dunes.
A parallel on Cobb Island is unestablished yet. The evidence
indicates that the population should be eliminated with consideration I
given to the value 1-0- documenting the -phenomenon.

The Jack rabbit population and effect on vegetation should be
monitored. Dueser, et al, hypothesize in Volume I of this study
that island inundation may be the limiting stochastic variable
of the vertebrate fauna of low lying islands such as-Cobb. Recent
information indicates that this may not be so in the case of these
hares (Weske, 1976). Provided jack rabbit populations are not
obviously adversely affecting the island, waiting until the island
is inundated by the next severe coastal storm serves several *
purposes. It would permanently answer Dueser' s biogeographical
hypothesis concerning the effect of inundation on~ some island
populations. If it eliminated the jack rabbit, it would by-pass the I
expense of an elaborate eradication program. If the animals were
not destroyed after flooding, the hypothesis would be nullified and
the option of artificially removing the jack rabbits would remain.
Whether a natural or contrived removal plan is followed, the animals
should be removed eventually. Removal should proceed immediately
if the jack rabbit's reported overwater dispersal ability is
substantiated to prevent spread of this exotic species to adjacentI

The two exotic rodents of the island system are the house mouse and
Norway rat. They have been found on Parramore, H-og, and Smith
Islands; and Parramore and Revel Islands respectively. Dueser et al
-106-I

state that they have-fAected natural communities by inducing
small mammal species shuffling within the island complex. Specific
effects of these species as a consumer group on plants and animals
are undocumented for the Virginia Coast Reserve. In an instance
in Massachusetts, Norway rats were responsible for killing about
95% of the chicks in a mixed colony of 700 pairs of common and
200 pairs of roseate terns within a five day period. Similar ly
a colony of 300 pairs of common terns was also devastated there.
Chicks were attacked, killed, and eaten, adult birds were killed
and eggs were either eaten or cached (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
1975). Similar incidents might occur within the Virginia Barrier
Island system. It is desirable to eliminate these introduced
rodents from the islands; yet it is unrealistic to expect that
this could be done expediently.

2~ Native Species

Several mammal species particularly sensitive to human influence
occur on the islands. They are the commonly sought fur-bearers or
game animals including the Smith Island cottontail rabbit, gray
squirrel, red fox, mink, and river otter. These species are
considered sensitive and merit protection on the basis of their
relative rarity within the system or in the case of the Smith Island
cottontail, due to their unique taxonomic status. Dueser, et al,(1976)
have indicated hunting and trapping as one of the main factors
contributing to barrier island extinctions. These species must be
protected from these activities to ensure their survival within
the Virginia Coast Reserve. Upland hunting and trapping were
once more intensive on the islands than they are now. Prohibiting
these activities does not significantly alter the current traditional
use of the islands. Restrictions against upland hunting should
not arbitrarily preclude white-tailed deer hunting. This population
may require some manipulative management in the future. The topic
is considered in more detail below.

Predator control should likewise be prohibited on the islands.
Regrettable instances of these activities have occurred in recent
years on Parramore Island. Strychnine bait was broadcast to
poison fox, raccoon, and other predators prior to game-stocking
activities. The persecution of the red fox on this island is
elaborated in the Ecosystem Description Volume. None have been
sighted in recent years. Any terrestrial insular fauna, particularly
island predators, are ecologically valuable, rare entities
(Lazell, 1975a). They should be relished as exceptional species
rather than persecuted. Future stewardship plans should preclude
any control of naturally occuring predators. This is particularly
urgent on Parramore Island where plans are often spoken of to further
manipulate predator populations (Schmidlapp, 1975).

Several documented mammalian components of the original Virginia
Barrier Islands have been extirpated. Ecosystem restoration of
the islands should include re-establishing these species where
practical. The red fox occurs in low densities on Hog Island and

-107-

possibly others. Field research should determine whether they
presently exist on other islands, particularly Parramore and
Smith. If not, reintroduction of this species may be warranted
after considering habitat availability. Similarly, the bobcat was
once a component of the coastal ecosystem. Officials at Cumberland
Island National Seashore have recently reintroduced a male and two
female bobcats there. Research should determine whether any of
the Virginia Coast Reserve islands could support this species.
Its reintroduction would restore a lost component of the barrier
island system and might help balance populations of the over-
abundant, under-sized deer and raccoons of Parramore Island.
Diminutive black bears, pumas, and gray wolves were also original
components of the peninsula-island system. Their reintroduction
today would be impractical, and the reserve alone probably would not
satisfy their habitat requirements.

The white-tailed deer of the reserve may present a special steward-
ship problem. All investigators who have examined individuals
of the Parramore Island herd or the forage conditions on the island
have concluded that the deer-are in poor condition and/or that
their range is overbrowsed (Dueser, et al, 1976a; Folk, 1975;
Gilliam, 1969; McCaffrey, 1976; Settle, 1975; Williams, 1975).
No data has been obtained on the deer of the other islands beyond
observations of their occurrence on'nearly all the islands by
various investigators and local contacts. McCaffrey (1976) reports
minimal browse damage to the vegetation of Smith Island. There
is at leas t one observation indicating inter-island mobility of
deer between Myrtle and Smith Islands, across Little Inlet (Hennessey,
1975). Dueser, et al, also believe that deer have the potential
to at least temporarily utilize all of the reserve's islands due
to their strong overwater dispersal ability. This contention is
corroborated by local residents who report incidents of deer
crossing the marshes and channels between the islands and mainland.
Evidence collected from five deer on Parramore Island on
September 17, 1975, indicates a substantial discrepancy between
the condition of the vigor of the island's deer herd and the
mainland's. Compared to mainland populations Island specimens
were unusually small, had scant mysentary fat, carried a greater
than average number of abomasal parasites, had abnormal antler
development, and the sample indicated an unusual age structure
(Settle, 1975). Based on this comparison, Dueser et al question
the extent to which these populations intermix. This viewpoint
also is shared by Hillestad, et al (1975) who state that island
deer populations have limited immigration possibilities.

The biology of the islands' deer is poorly understood. They are
the only native large mammal remaining on the island complex. In
the past, the reports of local residents indicate that deer had
become scarce on both the mainland and the islands during the
early twentieth century. Deer were introduced to Parramore Island
around 1930 and later stocking occurred close after 1934 (Graham,
1976). The effect of these stockings on the islands' and peninsula's
herds is unknown, though many area residents claim that it revived the

-108-

area herd. Precise harvest data for the islands' deer is lacking.
Poaching and legal harvest probably account for an insignificant
number of deer annually. There are no natural predators of deer
on the islands.

Insular deer herds are typically undersized by comparison with
adjacent mainland deer. This general trend is found throughout
the white-tailed deer complex (Hillestad, et al, 1975). A survey
of the order artiodactyla on eleven ocean islands indicated that
island forms were smaller on nine islands and the same size on two
(Foster, 1964). The reasons for this size discrepancy are partially
related to genetic factors and partially based on dietary deficiency.
Population size and body size are also inter-related. Hillestad,
et al (1975) state:
"On most islands in the southeast, deer populations are
limited by parasites and diseases interacting with poor
nutrition. Because island deer populations are limited
in immigration possibilities and large predators are
absent, selection pressures for optimum size would favor
smaller animals better able to maintain a population size
large enough to insure survival of the herd in a habitat
with food resources greatly limited in quantity and
quality. Subtropical temperatures may also be a factor."

The Virginia Barrier Islands occupy a position intermediate along
the Atlantic Coastal Plain. While they have characteristics of
both northern and southern systems the botanical features are
distinctly southern. It appears that the above explanation of
deer size on other southern barrier islands may at least partially
explain the small deer and dense herd on Parramore.

Additional evidence recently developed supports the hypothesis
that cyclic population fluctuations are an integral component
of the ecology of barrier island floral - faunal systems. Historical
instances of such "booms and busts" have been recorded for islands
in this region where deer have been introduced. Up to 60% of an
insular population of 300 deer died within a two month period. Over
two years, mortality reached 78% (Christian et al, 1960). Traditional
island management schemes have attempted to treat deer herds according
to the guidelines of orthodox wildlife management practices which
mandate that large deer are more desirable individuals. This
generally applied maxim is not necessarily true for barrier island
populations. Here the cyclic increases and decline of populations
may be integrally attuned to reciprocal fluctuations of other
vertebrate, invertebrate and plant species. Disruption of these
deer cycles in favor of a management strategy which would tend to
optimize herd size and deer size at some prescribed carrying capacity
or limit might inadvertently affect reproduction and survival of
the deer themselves and of other ecosystem components. Allowing
the population of deer to regulate its own numbers through the
imposition of natural, existing environmental constraints may
provide the best approach to total ecosystem protection available.

-109-

To test this hypothesis, two rather discrete populations of deer,
those on Parramore Island and those on Smith Island, should be
earmarked for experimental monitoring and manipulation. Analysis
of the effects of a traditional "carrying capacity" approach
to herd management on one island and another non-manipulative I
approach on another would determine the effects that these divergent
practices have on ecosystem structure.

An immediate apparent flaw in proposing that natural processes I
be allowed to govern the size of the reserve's deer herd is that
other system components have been disturbed to the extent that
their present absence may also effect the species. It is almost
certain that this pristine island system contained vertebrate
predators which affected deer populations. Efforts should be
directed at determining these species precisely. Appropriate I
measures should be considered to reintroduce extirpated fauna
compatible with present island stewardship objectives. Bobcats
have been reintroduced to Cumberland Island, Georgi4 to restore
that system's original island fauna and to act as a natural damper
on the island's deer. Similar practices should be investigated
for implementation where appropriate within the Virginia Coast
Reserve.

The limited hunting that currently is done on Parramore's herd is
permissible. This practice should be curtailed in other portions I
of the reserve pending future study and determination of a precise
deer management scheme.

B. Reptiles and Amphibians I

The herptofauna of the Virginia Coast Reserve is known from literature
citations, observations, and museum specimens. As with the mammalian
fauna, the islands' reptiles and amphibians seem to represent a
depauperate subset of the mainland species. Within the Virginia Coast
Reserve, Smith Island presently supports the widest array of reptiles
and amphibians. Hog Island once supported nearly as wide a range of
species but it appears that with the loss of the diverse forests formerly
at the southern end of the island, the herp fauna diminished. Parramore,
the largest of the islands, supports considerably fewer species.
Additional needed field work might substantially alter these findings.

There are no historical accounts of the original undisturbed herpetofauna I
of the islands and hence, no baseline from which to gauge their
sensitivity to disturbance. Most species will benefit from general
habitat protection. Additional safeguards should shield these delicate
insular breeding populations from over-zealous collecting by amateur
naturalists and bona fide researchers as well. To insure this, all
research, projects should be approved by qualified scientific staff.
Individual specimens might be collected only for deposition in
permanent museums. Care should be taken that they do not represent
an inordinate percent of the islands' population. Male specimens should
be collected rather than females. Gravid females should never be
collected. When possible infirmed animals should be taken rather than
healthy individuals.

There are only a few members of the islands' herptofauna that appear
particularly ecologically sensitive. They are the black rat snake,
eastern king snake, eastern box turtle, a specific population of
snapping turtles, northern fence lizard, ground skink, and the Atlantic
loggerhead turtle. The ground skink and box t-irtle on Smith Island
represent the only record of these species within the entire island
complex. The black rat snake and the northern fence lizard are found
only on Assateague and Smith Islands -at the extreme ends of the system.
The eastern king snake was first found on Smith Island only recently
(Hennessey, 1975). The islands' particular race is an integrated form.
It is apparently taxonomically intermediate between the'eastern kingsnake
(Lampropeltis g. getulus) and the Outer Banks kingsnake (Lampropeltis j.
sticticeps) Furthermore, it appears that this is the only example of this
species known on any barrier island north of the North Carolina Outer
Banks (LaZelle, 1975). Their isolated distributions and in the case
of the-king snake, its unique taxonomic status, make these animals
particularly sensitive to disturbance and warrant special protection for
the species. A dense, mature population of large snapping turtles
thrives in Goose Lakes on Parramore Island. This is a relatively un-
paralleled situation anywhere, particularly with a shallow, confined
barrier island pond (Bury, 1976). This population should be protected
from harvesting or from impact by predator control activities.

The Atlantic loggerhead turtle still nests on the Virginia Barrier
Islands. Historical reports (Hogg, 1975) and recent citing of turtle
crawls (McCaffrey & Cullipher, 1975; Walker. 1976) corroborate
the turtles' long-term dependence on the islands' beaches. Direct
observations of nesting signs have been found in early May. Evidence
from other nesting areas indicates that the turtles may nest here through
June (Anderson, 1976). Loggerhead turtles are rather abundant around the
barrier islands throughout the summer months. In other areas of their
range, they have been severely depleted. All nesting beaches of this
species are important to their future survival. The turtles have recently
been proposed for official recognition as a threatened species (Noack, 1976).
Nesting activity may be disturbed by human activities. Paramount among
these are disturbance of females during nesting and of young upon hatching.
Disturbances typically result from vehicle activity on nesting beaches
and interference with the primarily nocturnal females and young on their
trips to or return from their nests. Accordingly, beaches should be
specifically patrolled to eliminate motor vehicle use and overnight-vehicle
camping during these susceptible periods.

IV. BIRDS

The Virginia Coast Reserve provides a variety of breeding, migratory, and
wintering habitat to a wide array of bird species. 'They are discussed in
detail in two sections of Volume I, The Ecosystem Description of this study.
Some components of the avian species' population are more sensitive to disturbrance
than others. This sensitivity is shown by historical disturbances reported
in these sections and Volume I, Section 1. Analysis of the latest
reproductive success of beach nesting and colonial birds indicates successful

recolonizing of the Virginia Coast Reserve following their historical
disturbance. Specific analysis of these species during 1975 showed a high
success rate. As detailed reproductive information has not been gathered for
the upland species, in Volume 1, species-habitat associations. are discussed
for this component of the islands' ecosystem. Passing reference is also - . 3
made to the isans importance as breeding habitat for osprey and as a
migratory corridor for shorebirds and their allies, waterfowl, and
peregrine falcons.3

This research all indicates that the breeding aggregations of beach nesting
and wading species are the most ecologically sensitive components of the islands?
avian fauna. The upland species and migrant shorebirds are afforded protection 3
through habitat preservation. Osprey nest sites require some protective
management which is easily provided. Peregrines use the area only briefly
and are susceptible to capture. Patrolling beaches during migratory seasonI
provides for their best protection. Migratory and wintering waterfowl congregate
on the islands' fresh water ponds and require special protection to minimize
their disturbance.3

Beach nesting birds, particularly terns and skimmers, are highly susceptible
to human activities including accidental disturbance and deliberate disruption
via egging. Embryoes and chicks may die due to the overheating caused whenI
alarmed parents abandon their nests when disturbed. People and motor vehicles
crush inconspicuous nests and young inadvertently. They should be precluded
from colonial nest sites. To accomplish this the shifting colonies should beI
surveyed annually. The boundaries should be appropriately marked warning
island users to avoid the area. Such programs-have been undertaken by the
Florida and Massachusetts Audubon Societies. Similar stewardship recommendations3
have been outlined for these birds in Volume II. The location of the beach
colonies, heronries, and osprey nests during 1975 are shown on the accompanying
sensitive areas maps.3

Mixed heronries consisting of several species of herons, egrets, night herons,
and glossy ibis have been identified on several islands. The colonies are
often located in the same spot'annually. These wading species can adapt to
human visitation if it occurs commonly throughout the breeding season (Hillestad.,
et al, 1975). If the birds are not properly conditioned, infrequent human
visits always frighten them. Adults fleeing nests subject eggs and nestlings1
to overheating, chilling, and predation from attendant and opportunistic fish
~crows. When alarmed the gangling young birds may also fall from their nests
and die, On the Virginia Coast Reserve, no rookeries can expect to receive
the consistent amount of human contact necessary to condition the birds toI
tolerate these intrusions. Therefore, all visits would be detrimental to
the species' nesting success. The heronries should be posted and patrolled
annually to prevent intrusion.
Seventeen active osprey nests were reported within the Virginia Coast Reserve
during 1975. The islands provide both natural and man-made nest structures
to the birds. The osprey presently appear to be moving from the islands and
relocating nests along channel markers and similar man-made structures further
in-shore. (Byrd, 1975). The reasons for this shift are unknown. Ospreys are
apparently able to tolerate human activity in the vicinity of their nestsI
(Spitzer, 1973). Their nests should be located and posted annually to insure
undue disturbance but no particular precautions are required to protect them
oth erwise.

-112-I

Arctic peregrine falcons use all of the Virginia Barrier Islands as a migratory
corridor. During the autumn, particularly September and October, these birds
are frequently sighted. In late September and early October, 1975, forty
falcons were banded on Assateague Island and seventeen banded on Cedar Island.
The barrier islands are particularly important to the population of the falcons
dependent on the east coast as a "leading line" for migration. This east
coast flyway is perhaps the major one in North America for these birds.
Recent banding recoveries indicate that falcons establish traditional hunting
and resting grounds within their migratory routes (Ward, 1975). Local sources
have indicated that within the past several years, falconers have trapped
and collected these birds from the Virginia Coast Reserve (Volume I, Section 1,
Faunal History). Strict patrol measures should be implemented during the
fall of the year to prevent reoccurrence of these events. The United States
Fish and Wildlife Services' Division of Law Enforcement is responsible for
enforcing the protection of these endangered species. They have indicated a
willingness to cooperate in the protection with the Virginia Coast Reserve.

Migratory waterfowl congregate within the Virginia Coast Reserve in large
numbers. Parramore, Hog, and Smith Islands are especially attractive to
waterfowl, apparently due to their fresh water ponds and sloughs. The islands
and marshes of the Virginia Coast Reserve have provided recreational and
commercial harvests of waterfowl for centuries. Both practices still occur.
The interior portion of the islands concentrate waterfowl. Hunters often
violate federal game laws, using illegal methods and killing exorbitant numbers
of birds within the preserve. To avoid this contingency in the future, the
upland portion of all islands should be considered an ecologically sensitive
area, closed to hunting during the waterfowl gunning season. This restriction
in effect still opens thousands of acres of Nature Conservancy owned marshes
adjacent to the upland portions of the islands to sport hunting, but retains
the islands' interiors as a waterfowl sanctuary area. The areas open to
regulated gunning within the reserve correspond to the low salt marsh and
upper low salt marsh classifications defined in Volume I. Legal restrictions
prevent the marshes of Parramore, Revel, Cobb, and Ship Shoal Islands from
being opened to public hunting.

Waterfowl trapping is an illegal activity which presently exists within the
reserve. Formerly, the practice was more widespread than today (Volume 1,
Section 1, Disturbance to Avian Fauna). The-ilbgal trapper pays little
attention to use restrictions imposed on private property. To define
sensitive areas for this decimating activity would be superfluous. State
and federal wardens and The Nature Conservancy personnel should be encouraged
to be on the lookout for this activity within the Virginia Coast Reserve
during routine patrol duties.

The variety of upland birds reported in Volume II are afforded protection
through habitat maintenance. No endangered species appear to occur in this
portion of the islands' community. The Ipswich sparrow has been found wintering
on Assateague Island. Ideal habitat is provided within the Virginia Coast
Reserve. The islands lie within the species' migratory and wintering
range. They probably occur here during fall and winter. The endangered
Southern bald eagle and red cockaded woodpecker might find suitable nestina
habitat within the reserve were colonizing individuals to discover the islands.

Several exotic or naturalized bird species exist within the Virginia Coast
Reserve. These include species purposefully introduced for sport hunting
and those that are apparently a vestige of former human use of the islands.
Ring-necked pheasants occur on Hog and Cobb islands. Bobwhite quail have

been introduced and may exist on Parramore and Cobb Islands and feral chickens
and guinea hens live on Hog Island. The impact of these species an theI
naturally occurring biotic diversity of these islands is uncertain. They
have not displaced any other bird species. Suspected effects on other components
of the islands' ecology are largely conjectural. Strictly speaking, they
are not components of the naturally occurring system. However, there is
no evidence that they present a threat now. Their eradication may be possible
but this is not a priority stewardship problem.'I

Restoration of the original Virginia Coast Reserve ecosystem should include
assessment of the original avian fauna of the islands a-ad provision for their
future sustenance.. There is historical evidence that suggests the componentsI
of the Virginia Coast Reserve's avian fauna that have been depleted. The
majority of the beach nesting and wading species have had good nesting success
recently. The program previously outlined for the Virginia Coast Reserve
breeding grounds gives these species the opportunity to re-establish their
former abundance provided they have similar opportunities throughout their
range.

Formerly, osprey occurred in larger colonies within the islands than they do
now. "... Thousands of fish hawks..."? previously nested on Hog Island
(Volume E, Section 1, Disturbance of Avifauna through Human Activity).I
Seventeen were reported within the entire preserve in 1975. Lack of breeding
habitat is not the limiting factor for the osprey population. If other en-
vironmnental parameters improve, the population within the Virginia Coast Reserve I
will probably respond by increasing toward former abundance.

Occasional pairs of peregrine falcons formerly nested in old osprey nests
along the Virginia Coast. The Atlantic coastal marshes certainly provide
abundant prey populations (Cade, 1975). The Cornell University Laboratory
of Ornithology has recently successfully reintroduced captive-bred fledgling
falcons into their former habitat. Lab officials indicate that it will be
several years before reintroduction of the birds to the Virginia coast will
'be attempted (Dague, 1976). There is the possibility that at that time the
Virginia Coast Reserve may support a resident breeding population of peregrines I
as well as providing a migratory corridor for this species as it does now.

Similarly, suitable nesting habitat exists for the southern bald eagle within
the reserve. The islands are within the birds' present range and eaglesI
are sighted occasionally in the area. This endangered species could nest
within the. reserve in the future although the prognosis is poor since their
reproductive rate, 5-35%, is below that necessary to establish a stableI
population (Jenkins, 1974).

The main stewardship emphasis of the Virginia Coast Reserve's avian resource
should concentrate on protection of colonial nesting seisduring the
breeding season and migratory waterfowl during the fall and winter. To
accomplish this former goal, annual breeding surveys should locate each
colony. Waterfowl protection can be insured by controlling access and patrolling
during appropriate seasons. Other specific programs should include species
restoration and monitoring combined with overall habitat preservation.

-114-

V~. GENERAL THREATS

Two major potential threats to the natural integrity of the Virginia Coast Re-
serve include the discovery and development of outer continental shelf oil and
gas reserves in the Baltimore Canyon Trough adjacent to the barrier islands and
the enlargement and construction of the Delmarva Waterway, a project of the
United States Army Corps of Engineers which would dredge an intercoastal passage
for vessels between the barrier islands and mainland extending 150 miles from
Lewes, Delaware, south to Cape Charles, Virginia.

A. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)

The possible ecological impacts of oil and gas developments were the subject
of separate inquiries conducted by two federal agencies. The United States
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, produced the: Draft
Environmental Statement (2 volumes), Proposed Increase in Acreage to be
Offered for Oil and Gas Leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf (DES74-90).
The Council on Environmental Quality published OCS Oil and Gas-An Environ-
mental Assessment (5 volumes) in April, 1974. ~Both reports address the
potential disruption that oil and gas related activities might have on the
marine, beach and wetland systems of the Virginia Coast Reserve. These
disturbances would result from a variety of direct, indirect, temporary,
and permanent impacts. The magnitude of and impetus for OCS development
generally exceeds The Nature Conservancy's sphere of influence. Should
OCS development prove imminent, a double strategy should be adopted to
protect the barrier islands. Baseline monitoring of~sensitive ecological
components of the system should continue to provide a reliable data base
from which to assess the island system's health. This would provide in-
dices of changes within the system and a comparison line in the event of
any OCS related impact on the islands. In addition to this monitoring,
island stewards should be directly involved with planning the offshore
and onshore facilities to minimize potential impact on fragile coastal
resources.

The Council on Environmental Quality's summary of the ecological effects
of OCS activities states that:

Both permanent and temporary stresses can cause ecological impacts.
Permanent stresses result from development of harbors and construction
facilities, placement of platforms and pipelines, dredging and filling
operations, alteration of drainage patterns, and construction of re-
fining and petrochemical complexes. Chronic pollution by the opera-
tional discharge of brines from active fields may also be considered
to be permanent, since these discharges - which also contain some oil -
continue and actually increase with the age of the field. Permanent
effects may be further subdivided into direct, indirect, and associated
problems. Direct effects involve the permanent loss of land or water
bottoms to structures, dredging operations, and spoil placement. In-
direct effects, which cause the greatest damage to ecosystem dynamics,
are broader in scope, involving changes in water cirulation, salinity,
turbidity, and chronic pollution. Associated effects involve a mul-
titude of changes in land use, air and water pollution, and other
problems resulting from such secondary developments as construction
of industrial complexes and housing, and shifts of populations to or
within the coastal zone.

-115-

Temporary ecological impacts are generally associated with accidents
such as well blowouts, loss of drilling muds, and oil spills. These
occurrences can be costly and destructive and reduce productivity of '
the impacted area. After a variable amount of time has elapsed, the
affected ecosystem generally will recover to a point where the normal
biota and ecosystem activity are, restored.I

The significance of such impacts may be measured by their spatial
extent and the length of time required f or recovery. The recovery
time depends not only on the species present in the area and theirI
interdependencies, but also an the persistence of the pollutant in the
environment. As indicated in the CEQ Report, the persistence of oil
in the marine environment is still poorly understood. ConflictingI
observations on the persistence of oil and its long-term effects on
the local ecosystem abound in the published literature. Evidence
Iexists for rapid degradation and dispersal of oil by natural processes.
On the other hand, there is also evidence of continuing impacts due,
for exhmple, to periodic releases of hydrocarbons that have been in-
corporated into sediments, where they can persist unchanged for long
periods of time. We suggest that the questions surrounding theI
persistence of oil in the marine environment should-be resolved
through careful and intensive investigation before irreversible
damage is inflicted on biologically and economically sensitive areas.
Having determined the nature of the temporary impacts, it is important
to predict the frequency with which they occur. The CEQ study has re-
vealed interesting and useful. statistics on the probabilities of
accidents. These statistics should lead to a further analysis of the
causes of failures, both physical and operational, so that technology
.can be developed and implemented'to reduce their recurrence.
Accidental spills should also be analyzed for the probability of
reaching an ecologically sensitive area. This probability dependsI
upon the location of the source, the type and amount of pollution,
the location of the ecosystem affected, and the season of occurrence.
The size of the spill and the extent of the area affected would be
important 'In evaluating the impact on the function or productivity
of the area. The CEQ study has addressed these problems for accidental
spills at possible production sites offshore and for selected local
areas based on the work performed by MIT.
The probability of localized impacts based upon computed drifts or
trajectories of oil slicks using historical wind and weather dataI
could be helpful in evaluating the relative hazards of different
drilling sites or locations for shore-based pipeline terminals, trans -
fer facilities, or refineries. 'However, as noted ini Section III, the
data on which the study is based are inadequate and the model uncertain.-
The probabilities in the CEQ Report are based on a large number of simu-
lated trajectories using hypothesized mean currents and stochastic
winds. The mathematical simulations were checked against drift bottle
data that may or may not have meaning for the tracking of oil spills.
Because the mathematical and physical models of the transport mechanisms
are themselves uncertain, we do not-have confidence in present capa-
bility to predict the probability of localized impact due to the move-
ment 'of oil spills.

W~e wish to emphasize that for a particular spill at a given time
predictions of the probability of that spill reaching a particular
U ~ ~~~location may be misleading. Since spills are not expected to occur
frequently, the degree of risk will 'be determined by the actual
weather and sea conditions at the time of the accident and for a
period of time following it.
The toxicity of crude oil and its fractions is also little known
and poorly understood. Most of the literature on toxicity has evolved
from laboratory experiments or from heavy spills into small areas.
An evaluation of the toxicity problem should account for the amount
of oil spilled, the proportion of the toxic fraction, the total vo lume
I ~ ~~~of water -polluted and its rate of replacement, and the surface area
involved. This type of analysis over many variations of the environ-
I ~~~~mental parameters does not exist, as the CEQ study implies.

A thorough evaluation of an oil spill impact on an ecosystem, its
productivity, and economic structure, requires estimation of the size
I ~ ~~~of the spill, the probability of oil reaching the area, the physical
and biological effects of the oil., its persistence in the environment,
and the resilience of the ecosystem to the intrusion. The resilience
of an ecosystem is determined by its internal dynamics. As we indi-
cated in Section III, some systems, for example, estuaries and deltas,
have inherent dynamic characteristics that permit them to withstand
highly Variable and seasonal changes in their natural environmental
I ~ ~~~parameters. In specific cases these natural fluctuations can be so
great that they overshadow any effect from either chronic or accidental
spills thus far observed. Many communities and species are transient;
I ~~~~their appearance and disappearance by season or by some other short
interval of time may obscure the impact of a localized and temporary
stress from oil. Even assuming that most of the living organisms
were killed within a local area, the total productivity of the eco-
system might still fall within the measurable limits of annual vari-
ations in production. Thus, only cumulative losses in acreage or
changes in the composition of the biota would give evidence for
measurable permanent damage.
It should not be inferred, however, that recovery from unnatural or
man-made stresses, whether chronic or tempprary, can always proceed
without measurable long-term effects. The response of a particular
system to an unnatural stress may differ from that due to natural
variations, especially since the existing ecosystem has developed
as'a result of tolerance to the usual range of natural phenomena.
Clearly, the response of a specific ecosystem to man-made changes
will depend critically upon the system, its dynamics, and the nature
of the <eration.
The impacts of oil pollution on ecosystems in different habitats will
differ. Oil spilled near stable shores with narrow intertidal zones
is likely to be washed away by wave action more rapidly than oil
spilled in estuaries and marshlands with wide, shallow intertidal
.zones. In these latter areas, pollution is more likely to be trappe
and incorporated into sediments where it can persist for long periods.
The finer sediments, such as silts and clays, will retain oil for

3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~-117-

longer periods than will clean sandy sediments. As the CEQ Report
concludes, the economic impact of oil pollution in estuaries and3
marshlands is also likely to be more significant because these areas3
generally serve as feeding and nursery grounds for many important
commercial species of fish and shellfish.

The CEO study has concentrated primarily on the fates and effects of
;t emporary oil spills from offshore locations and secondarily on the
impacts of chronic discharges. The Committee concludes that insufficient3
attention has been given to permanent, direct and indirect effects and
to the effects associated with onshore-development. In particular,
the environmental effects in the coastal zone due to economic activities3
accompanying OCS development, such as changing land use patterns and
population centers, ought to be examined in detail.

~One type of permanent impact treated in the CEQ Report results from
the landfall of pipelines. Dredging, filling, and damming in unstable -
estuarine and deltaic regions can alter changes in the physical and
chemical environment with resultant ecosystem changes. Much less
damage may occur, however, if pipelines come ashore at stable shores.

While all of the necessary information regarding the impact of oil
on the marina environment is not available, definitive conclusionsI
can be reached for some effects. For example, the evidence on the
effects of oil on birds is clear. Toxic results are known where re-
fined oils have been spilled in confined areas. The distribution
of tar balls in the open sea is well known, as is their presence on
beaches. In contrast, clear damage by sublethal chronic contamination
in the Gulf of Mexico has not been demonstrated. Ambiguities arise
'because most studies have been incomplete, inadequate, and transitory ,
and the effects of spills in the open seas have rarely been studied.l/

iHypothetical Atlantic Ocean drilling sites are shown in Figure 1.I

B. Delmarva Waterway
The Delmarva Waterway project would have a widespread ecological impact
on the Virginia Coast Reserve of a different sort.. If the project is
approved in Virginia (see Figure 2), the immediate direct and far-reaching
indirect consequences would be enormous. Although the state of Virginia,I
as well as Maryland-and Delaware, withdrew their support for the proposed
Waterway in early 1976, the' project has not'been deauthorized by
Congress. Accordingly, the Delmarva Waterway could once again rare
its ugly head in the future, bringing far-reaching consequences to
the protection of the Barrier Islands.

In a brochure prepared by the Committee to Preserve Assateague the followingI
impacts are noted:

The Delmarva Waterway would cross an area consisting of shallow baysI
surrounded by rich wetlands. These wetlands form the base of the
food chain essential to the survival of life in the oceans. Experts
state they are an extremely valuable-and fragile estuarine system3
and are among the most important fish nursery grounds along the mid-
Atlantic Coast. In 1973 the commercial value of the Atlantic Ocean

1/OCS Oil and Gas - An Environmental Assessment: A Report to the President, Council3
on Environmental Quality, April, 1974, Volume I, pp. 202-204.
-118-

S~~~~~~~~~~I."
,Aaia ilt ::al imr

a0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 50I001 0

K I 0

Figure 1. Atlantic Hypothetical Drilling Sites

and Chincoteague Bay landings for this region
totaled $1,853,3011for shell fish and $387,262
The'Waterway would be dredged along the for finfish, but the fishery resources can only
Atlantic Coast behind the barrier islands be maintained and enhanced if the marsh fringe
from Delaware south to Virginia. and water quality are preserved. This area is
also a critical habitat for hundreds of thousands
of wintering migratory waterfowl and encompasses
:i ~:? the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge. It
/DTL'>' is an important nesting area for black duck, teal
?/- RNL~/HGTOH CHJEYSEYand other species.

To build the waterway the Corps will have to carry
out tremendous dredging, cut through marshes, and
BALTIMORE~,
dispose of large quantities of dredged material.
: OYE! i o~, ,: 2,800 acres of land will have to be sacrificed

BAY yards of spoil over the life of the project.
Water quality will be adversely affected both
' ,ooSEYE by initial dredging, the almost continuous main-
{ !i:tenance dredging that would be required and the
,,Lt.-o~o disposal of spoil. The waterway will lure large
pleasure boats into these shallow bays with oil
and sewage contamination sure to follow since
SLSBAH, ~REACH 2 these bays have little flushing capability (scien-
tists estimate it takes 200 days for an exchange
Q. of water in Chincoteague Bay).

SA Y Z, Above and beyond the damaging effects of building
and maintaining the waterway are the tremendous
adverse impacts from attendant development spurred
ji ~uREACH by a canal. This project will open the door wider
to real estate developers who have already destroyed
much of our nation's best marshes. Once the water-
CHARLES way is built, there may be pressure to enlarge it
to accommodate oil barges, as is being done in
South Carolina, which would have devastating
effects on this prime recreational area. The
Chesapeake Bay just experienced a serious spill
from a barge with thousands of waterfowl being
killed. Development, siltation and pollution have forced the closing of
areas on the Eastern Shore to shellfish harvesting--St. Martin's River,
Herring Creek, Greenbackville and many others. What will happen to commer-
cial and recreational fishing if this continues?l/

The project has been scrutinized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia,
in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The document is currently being re-
viewed by many organizations and individuals including The Nature Conservancy.

I/Brochure: Delmarva Waterway Project of the Army Corps of Engineers: A Serious
Threat to the Coastal Region, Committee to Preserve Assateague, 1976.

-120-

VI. FUTURE RESEARCH

Throughout this study it has become apparent that the research opportunities
present in the Virginia Coast Reserve are abundant. This is specifically so
within the natural sciences though other fields of research are also critical.
They are devisible into two subsets, those necessary to successful preservation
of the Virginia Coast Reserve as a natural system and theoretical investigations
of a more academic nature. The two are closely allied with one another.
Stewardship-oriented research has contributed and will continue to contribute
substantially to a purely scientific appreciation of this barrier island
system. Conversely, research oriented studies also add operative information
which can be incorporated into island stewardship plans.

Recommended future research has been considered individually within several
sections of Volume I and in other parts of the Ecological Sensitivities section
of this volume. The following is a list of required and recommended research.
No attempt was made to exhaust the research potential within the reserve.

-121-

TABLE 1

RECOMMENDED FUTURE RESEARCH

Field Stewardship Research Pure Research

Land Use History 1. Archeological investi-
gation of insular
Indian middens.

Environmental Law 1. Periodic update of
pertinent legislation.

Geology & Soils 1. Investigate lead shot 1. Aging studies of:
contamination of tra- a. Parramore Island's
ditional waterfowl sand based marshes
hunting areas. b. Ancient forest
2. Produce periodic false stumps on Parramore'
color thermal infrared beach.
aerial photography. c. Marsh peats on
3. Investigate tidal ocean face of
hydrodynamics and Smith Island
sedimentation of inlets. d. Drowned beach ridges
4. Conduct marine geomorphic of Holly Bluff,
studies of Raccoon, Skidmore
a. Longshore sediment and Mockhorn Islands
transport
b. Sedimentation rate
of lagoon and marsh I
areas.
5. Compilation of a detailed,
distributable series showing
navigable channels, landing,
topography and vegetation
type. |

Vegetation 1. Compile complete _ 1. Investigate:
floristic list. a. Community structure
2. Delineate tidal wetlands and species
and other management bounda- importance.
ries precisely. b. Salt Marsh produc-
3. Investigate dune plantings. tivity and
4. Establish permanent transect characteristics.
lines and camera points. c. Marsh succession
5. Determine the association rates on overwash
of firest impact on vege- and mud flat areas.
tation community.
Fauna

Terrestrial Vertebrates 1. Examine forage relation- 1. Collect a voucher series
ships of deer and feral of all terrestrial
livestock, and their vertebrate species.
impact on vegetation 2. Investigate potential
composition and genetic and morphological
productivity. variations.

-122-'

TABLE CONTtD

Field Stewardship Research Pure Research

2. Determine the feasibility 3. Investigate
and effects of reintro- disease/parasite-host
duction of extirpated relationships.
vertebrate species.
3. Devise techniques and plans
for removal of exotic
species.
4. Devise and implement a
seaturtle nesting popula-
tion survey.

Avifauna 1. Conduct annual seasonal 1. Examine the effect of
censuses of rookeries. abrupt habitat zonation
2. Inventory migratory on species diversity
and breeding waterfowl of upland birds and
populations. terrestrial vertebrates.
2. Document total species
abundance of the island-
peninsula's colonial
nesting bird species.
3. Define the critical
criteria determining
colonial bird rookery
site selection.

Aquatic Fauna 1. Inventory of aquatic
fishes of islands' ponds
and drainage systems.

Terrestrial Arthropods 1. Begin compiling a list of
species-habitat relationships.
2. Examine the ecology of the
southern pine bark beetle
on Parramore Island.

-123-

ISLAND USES

Uses of the islands of the Virginila Coast Reserve are determined
by a combination of legal and-ecological constraints. Ecosystem
limitations are defined in the Ecological Sensitivities section
of this volume. Legal constraints prohibit Parramore, Revel,
Cobb and Ship Shoal Islands from use by other than specifically
authorized personnel. Island uses themselves include-sets of
specifically prescribed permitted and prohibited categories.

I. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

The potential for research within the Virginia Coast Reserve
is enormous. A preliminary list of research topics was presented
earlier in this volume. The researchers responsible for speci-
fic disciplines within this study have unearthed many other
noteworthy topics for study which should be pursued. Generally,
the islands should be accessible to scientific research of a non-
consumptive nature. Individual projects should always be presentedI
to the Wachajirague Office of the Nature Conservancy through a
written proposal including a precise definition of purpose and
objectives. Biological specimen collecting is discouraged and willI
be controlled by species and island. Any records should include
species, sex, location collected, date, place of repository, and
specimen number. All research proposals will be reviewed byI
Virginia Coast personnel and national office staff. A standardized
report format will be required from each project.

One-proposal which has stimulated interest within the scientific I
community,, The Nature Conservancy and the financial community
is the possibility of establishing a barrier island research
consortium within the Virginia Coast Reserve. (See Appendix J.)
This facility would locate on the mainland adjacent to the
reserve office and utilize the islands as a nautral laboratory. The
benefits of such a facility would be many. The Islands would
derive immediate protection from the increased surveillance
provided by scientific observers attuned to detecting ecosystem
disturbance. A secondary layer of protection would also develop. As
the islands became more important as a research and educationalI
resource, damages from other avoidable threats such as channelization
and off-shore oil and gas development would become less likely. The
consortium would be structured to provide operating income to theI
reserve through an overhead fee. This income would help defray
the costs inherent in private sector land stewardship while
data generated by a consortium would help expand the base for
future management decisions which would further protect the islands.
Preliminary inquiry has established that substantial justification
exists for establishment of this facility. As the concept develops,
an objective assessment of the need for its establishment should
be explored.

-124-

I. RECREATION

The information contained in the Recreation Section of the Social
and Economic Analysis of this study reveals that there is no need to
I ~ ~~create additional organized beach recreation areas along the
inaccessible barrier islands. Where further local waterfront
,recreational areas are desired, tracts on Wallops Island or along the
Chesapeake Bay's shore would provide accessible outlets. Establishment
of such facilities on the Conservancy's Virginia Coast Reserve is
discouraged considering the other logical sites that are available
3 ~~~and more readily accessible.

Traditional pedestrian day use of the islands should be permitted by
local residents where it does not conflict with legal or ecological
I ~~~limitations previously outlined. Uses can include such non-destructive
activities as beach combing, swimming, hiking, surf fishing, scientific
observation and research, nature study and photography. Waterfowl
hunting may be permitted in portions of the low salt marsh and in areas
of the Reserve where hunting rights have not otherwise been
reserved. Waterfowlers on the Reserve should be required to use
steel shot exclusively. These concessions effectively open vast
portions of the privately owned islands and wetlands to limited
local recreational use.

3 ~~~The distinction has deliberately been made between island use by
area residents versus outsiders. It is distinctly pos'sible that the
extensive recreational resources offered by the Eastern Shore of the
Virginia Coast Reserve will become increasingly popular with
more oppressive to the islands and marshlands of the Virginia Coast
I~~~~eevmr stringent regulations, including island visitor quotas,
* ~~~may be requited. As a follow-up to this study, an effort should
be made to predetermine these pressures, anticipating the time when
I ~~~further regulation -may be needed.

II. GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS

3 ~~~The Virginia Coast Reserve meets the criteria of a number of govern-
ment sponsored programs. These programs have been mentioned elsewhere
within this volume as layers of protection, capable of'further
insuring the preservation of the Virginia Coast Reserve. Here they
are reiterated as a "use" of the Reserve by the government sector.
These programs are primarily status designations which may be obtained
while the islands remain in Conservancy ownership and include
programs at federal, state, and local levels.
3 ~~~A. Federal

1. 'United States Department of the Interior, National Park
Service:
3 ~~~~~~a. National Natural Landmark
b. National Environmental Education Landmark

3 -~~~~~~~~~~~125-

2. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service:
a. Lease (Hunting)I
b. Wetlands Easement

3. United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration:
a. Marine Sanctuary
b. Estuarine Sanctuary

4. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service
a. Managed Natural AreaI
b. Bench Mark Soil Series Area
B. State

1. State Water Control Board, Critical Ground Water Area

2. Division of Planning and Community Affairs, State Cr-itical
AreaI

3. Division of Game and Inland Fisheries:
a. Lease (Hunting)I
b. Wetlands Easement

4. Division of Parks
Management Lease for Natural Area

C. Local

1. Incorporation into County Land Use Programs as Conservation
or Critical Environmental Areas.

2. Protective Zoning

IV. PROHIBITED USES

Several typical island uses have been determined to be disruptive
to the preservation or stewardship of the islands. They are damaging
directly to the systems or interfere with expedient management.
In the former category there are several basic resource-destructive
activities which are prohibited. These include hunting on island
uplands above the low marsh boundary (except where prescribed byI
specific agreement), trapping in any portion of the reserve, egging
(collecting edible eggs during the spring and early summer), har-
vesting or otherwise deliberately destroying vegetation, use ofI
motor vehicles (except for patrol purposes by authorized personnel),
and impartation of domestic animals for any reason and at any time.
Overnight camping is also prohibited based on its actual ecological
impact on the islands themselves, particularly from the fire hazard
they present, and on the probability that overnight campers are less
manageable and more prone to mishap than are daytime island users.
Presently, only authorized research and patrol personnel are permitted
to camp overnight. These parties should be especially conscious of

-126-

the everpresent fire hazard on the islands and mindful to avoid
constructing open fires whenever possible.

V. PERMIT SYSTEM

The Conservancy could develop and implement a permit system which
would include a user fee for various activities conducted on the
I. ~ ~~islands. This income would help defray the cost inherent in private
sector land stewardship enabling The Conservancy to implement programs
it could not otherwise afford. The rationale behind this argument
concedes that these unspoiled islands and beaches are an eminently
desirable, extremely scarce commodity. To deny this would be to
overlook the tremendous "development" pressures which have historically
altered and are presently desecrating other coastal areas. The
desire to experience these areas has eventually led to their destruction.
A populace which continually exhibits these tendencies, which is
relentlessly drawn to these areas, is manifesting its willingness to
pay for these resour ces. Commensurate with the extent~ of the private
been the inability to financially mitigate the costs of managing
these systems, barring charitable contributions or volunteer efforts,
by private conservation organizations. Even within public land conser-
vation agencies'there *is a constricting financial bind afflicting
the Iability of these bodies to economically provide for stewardship
of their land holdings after acquisition. It is nearly incumbent
that at the juncture of these two pressures, private conservation
organizations strive to ameliorate the deficiency in funding for
some of their preserves, perhaps opening new avenues of thought
within the government sector along these lines.

* ~~~The Virginia Islands have historically attracted a wealthy class
of enthusiasts. Recently, there appears to be a resurgence of
interest by this same group in the type of experience which can be
offered through the Virginia Coast Reserve. The Reserve's proximity
to major population centers insures a regional market for the amenities
offered by the islands.-

The wilderness experience could be initially marketed to bird
watchers, hikers,'fishermen a-ad naturalists on a limited, day-
use permit basis. Similar experiences might be made to hunters if
I ~ ~~concessions were made to ensure against mismanagement of island
resources. The market for these enterprises could be recruited from
the readership of conservation and outdoor periodicals. Following
testing of these initial programs, long range plans for the Reserve
might include multiple day outings to various islands provided with
primitive overnight and interpretive facilities in ecologically
stable, resilient areas. The resulting business should develop into
I ~ ~~a provider of capital which might help sustain the maintenance of the
Virginia Coast Reserve system when coupled with other programs. The
incipient small business activity accompanying this system would be a

boon to the economy of the supporting seaside communities. Locally,

-127-

a user permit system should be experimentally initiated to achieve
several ends. It should be designed to at least "break even"t
financially, the cost of overhead being recouped in 'the cost of
permits. It would also serve as a self policing system, each-
of the islands, the privilege he was afforded to use them atpri appiatbigmd wr fTeCnevny wesi
.nominal fee and that he risked losing this right if he abused his
,privilege.
These approaches deserve further development which are beyond
the scope of the Virginia Coast Reserve Study. They should be
further pursued and incorporated in the long range planning forI
the Reserve.

REFERENCES

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anderson, J. D., 1976. Department of Biology, Rutgers University. Personal communication
with G. J. Hennessey.

Baumann, Chris, 1975. Personal communication with G. J. Hennessey.

Bury, B., 1976.' Chief, Division of Reptiles and Amphibians, National Museum of Natural
History. Personal communication with G. J. Hennessey

Byrd, Mitchell, 1975. Chairman, Department of Biology, William and Mary College.
Personal communication with G. J. Hennessey.

Cade, Tom J., ea., 1975. The Peregrine Fund Newsletter No. 3. Cornell University
Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York.

Christian, J. J., Flyger, V., and D. E. Davis, 1960. Factors in the Mass Mortality
of a Herd of Sika Deer, Cervus nippon. Chesapeake Science, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 79-95.

Clark, John, 1975. Coastal Ecosystems. Ecological Considerations for Management of
the Coastal Zone. -The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C.

Cullipher, Louis, 1976. Soil Survey of Selected Barrier Islands of Virginia. Paper
presented at the Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists Meeting, Mobile,
Alabama, February 4, 1976.

Dague, Phyllis R., 1976. For Dr. Tom J. Cade, The Peregrine Fund. Letter to G. J.
Hennessey, January 27, 1976.

Department of the Army, 1976. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Delaware Bay-
Chesapeake Bay Waterway in Delaware, Maryland and Virginia (Delmarva Waterway).
Corps of Engineers General Design Memorandum, Phase 1. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Dueser, R. D., 1976. Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental Science, University
of Virginia. Letter to G. J. Hennessey, March 29, 1976.

Dueser, R. D., Brown, W. C., McCuskey, S. A. and G. Hogue, 1976. Vertebrate Zoogeography
of the Virginia Barrier Islands. A technical report submitted to The Nature Conservancy.

Folk, R. L., 1975. County Forester, Virginia Division of Forestry. Letter to G. J.
Hennessey, October 27, 1975.

Forester, J. B., 1964. Evolution of Mammals on Islands. in The Ecology of Cumberland
Island National Seashore (H. 0. Hillestad, et. al.). Georgia Marine Science Center,
Skidaway Island, Georgia, Technical Report Series Number 75-5.

Gilchrist, Charles, 1975. Commonwealth of Virginia, Division of Game and Inland
Fisheries, Biologist. Personal communication with F. Victor Schmidt related to
G. J. Hennessey.

Gilliam, H., 1969. Final Report - Parramore Island Bowhunts. Virginia Commission of
Game and Inland Fisheries, unpublished report.

-129-

I
Graham, M. A., 1975. Land Use History - A Study of Man's Influence on the Virginia
Barrier Islands. Technical report submitted to The Nature Conservancy.

Handley, C.,,1975. U.S. Museum of Natural History. Personal communication to M. A. Graham.

Harvill, A. M., 'Jr., 1975. Unpublished plant species list of Parramore and Hog Islands,
submitted to The Nature Conservancy.

Hennessey, G. J., 1975. Unpublished record from field notes.

Hillestad, H. 0., J. R. Bozeman, A. S. Johnson, C. W. Berisford and J. I. Richardson, 1975.
The Ecology of Cumberland Island National Seashore, Camden County, Georgia.
Technical Report Series Number 75-5, Georgia Marine Science Center, Skidaway
Island, Georgia.

Hogg, G., 1975.' Lamplighter - Cape Charles Lighthouse, Smith Island, Virginia. Letter
to M. A. Graham, October 21, 1975.

Jenkins, D. W., 1974. Natural Areas of the Chesapeake Bay Region: Ecological Priorities.
A report by the Center for Natural Areas Ecology Program, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.

Kimball, Thomas L., 1975. (Executive Vice President, National Wildlife Federation.) I
Memorandum, March 5, 1975, Recent Studies on Lead Shot Poisoning Problems and
Solutions.

Komarek, E. V., Sr., 1962. Fire Ecology. Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire Ecology
Conference. 1:95-107. In The Ecology of the Cumberland Island Natural Seashore
(11. 0. Hillestad, et. al.). Georgia Marine Science Center, Skidaway Island,
Georgia, Technical Report Series Number 75-5.

Komarek, E. V., Sr., 1964. The Natural History of Lightning. Proceedings of the Tall
Timbers Fire Ecology Conference. 3:139-183. In The Ecology of the Cumberland Island
National Seashore (H. 0. Hillestad, et. al.). Georgia Marine Science Center,
Skidaway Island, Georgia, Technical Report Series Number 75-5.

Lazell, J. D., 1975. Scientific Staff, Massachusetts Audubon Society. Letter to G. J.
Hennessey, December 3, 1975.

Lazell, J. D., 1975a. Scientific Staff, Massachusetts Audubon Society. Personal
communication with G. J. Hennessey.

McCaffrey, C. and L. Cullipher, 1975. Unpublished record from field notes.

McCaffrey, C., 1975. Major Vegetation Communities of the Virginia Barrier Islands:
Metomkin Island through Smith Island Inclusive. A technical report submitted to
The Nature Conservancy.

Noack, R., 1976. U.S. Office of Endangered Species. Personal communication with
R. E. Jenkins, related to G. J. Hennessey.

Normann, M. J., 1975. Coastal Dunes in Sweden. Abstracted from: Investigations of Dune *
Morphology in Southern Holland. Naturgeorga Fiska Institutionen, Uppsala Universtitetl
Uppsala, Sweden.

-130-

Ranwell, D. S., 1975. Ecology of Salt Marshes and Sand Dunes. Coastal Ecology Research
Station (Nature Conservancy), Norwich, Great Britain.

Schmidlapp, C., 1975. Former owner of Parramore Island. Personal communication with
C. J. Hennessey.

Settle, F., 1975. Game Biologist, Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries.
Personal communication with G. J. Hennessey.

Spitzer, Paul, 1973. Personal communication with G. J. Hennessey.

Steirling, C. A., 1903. Hog Island, Virginia. Copyright by Charles A. Steirling, p. 3.

Tansley, A. G., 1949. The British Islands and Their Vegetation. In The Ecology of
Salt Marshes and Sand Dunes (Ranwell, 1975), Coastal Ecology Research Station
(Nature Conservancy), Norwich, Great Britain.

Upshur, T. T., 1900. Eastern Shore History. An address delivered at Accomack Courthouse
on June 9, 1900. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. IX, pp. 93.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 1975. Conserving Our Fish and Wildlife Heritage.
Annual Report - FY 1975.

Walker, J., 1976. Pilot, Virginia Marine Resources Commission. Personal communication
with G. J. Hennessey.

Ward, F. Prescott, 1975. Chief, Ecological Research Office, Department of the Army,
Aberdeen, Maryland. Letter to G. J. Hennessey, November 19, 1975.

Weske, J., 1976. Establishment of the Black-Tailed Jackrabbit on the Virginia Eastern
Shore. J. Mammalogy, Vol. 57, No. 1, February 27, 1976, pp. 180-181.

Williams, J. W., 1975. An Analysis of the Past and Present Status of the Beach Nesting
and Colonial Birds of the Virginia Barrier Islands. A technical report submitted
to The Nature Conservancy.

Williams, R., 1975. Chief, U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Plant Science Division.
Report on field trip to Parramore and Hog Islands submitted to The Nature Conservancy.

LEGEND

SENSITIVE AREAS
Sensitive Areas Based On Soil Factors

Sensitive Areas Based On Vegetative Factors

* ~~~~~~~~~~~SEASONALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
Sensitive Areas, Site Of 1975 Ground Nesting Bird Colony

Sensitive Areas, Site Of-Traditional Heronry

Sensitive Areas, Site Of Traditional Osprey Nest

Sensitive Areas, Site Of Pr obable Inlet Breaching

J ~~~~~~

r ~ I~[I0~ WL II

* ~ ~ IL II: f4'Lr14 ApjiendI1c

io:R~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~.Lr LI~.L~~~~0 Anticlimact0ically4~I~ooo10 '4

0. .100 ' 0011i11II il o0li toII iI oa''~l4I L0~~i0I l,

.00~, 110 4 oo~~i~l44i~~i..o 1110 i~0IioI~I~~iI~,' 40001..0 ~I iI0~l100L~14 I 1.~i~lI~lL~4 ~ '~~4 LII

''' 00 .NII 11[100400I0044004.L000I[
.1.I4;;.. I lIi~.Ii.n,4i4 �~ I~Iq!IL 04~04I40l0 io4P111Ii,0II4I14oI0.1i I 000 l140LL0I 44lIo 1 10414
!uldo,4~1 oI~lI~l1o40040.0r~1110ol[..1. 04

'U~~~~~~~~ I

44 1''' 4I00l.0l~0 1111 l,1401;i'oO ~ 10100.4 ~0. [10141 I 'Limam

'I 1414111' 14~~~oI1 04000'0' .41i'o~~6 1 II

*I, APPENDIX A

MUELFA, VIRGINIA: At the gular meeting of the
Chairman and members . t..= Accomack-Ntorthampton
I Planning District Conu.ssion held at the Eastern
Shore Cormmunity College, Melfa, Virginia, on
February 17, 1975.

c as, the Accomack-Northampton Planning District Commission, Accomac,
* ' > tIis duly recognized and legally constituted as Virginia Planning District
"* �-unaer Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia; and

Whereas, the County of Accomack-and the County of Northampton are members
of the Planning District Commission; and

c Whereas, the County of Accomack and the County of Northampton, together as
I the Planning District Commission serve to promote the best interests of both
jurisdictions, separately and jointly; and

Hhereas, the Accomack-Northampton Planning District Commission is authorized
to promote the orderly and efficient development of the physical, social, and
economic elements of the District by planning; and

Whereas-, the Planning District Commission is authorized to assist governmental
subdivisions with planning for the future; and

Whnereas, the Planning District Commission is authorized to advise in the
field of recreational activities, recommend recreational projects, encourage
recreational interests, seek and coordinate the cooperation of other individuals
-a and agencies; local State and Federal, and secure funding; and

. Whereas, the Planning District Commission authorized the preparation of two
~Reports concerning the various aspects of recreation; and

3 'Whereas, these Reports, Land Use ReDort, 1973 and Ooen-Space and Recreation
� *R 1974, assessed the problem and made certain recommendations;

* Whereas, 'the Planning District Commissio'n recognizes the need for 'more
� public recreational areas and activities and greater access by the people to these
'areas and activities; and

Whereas, the Planning District Commission encourages the preservation of
open space for recreation on Virginia's Eastern Shore; and

Whereas, the Planning District Commission recognizes this privilege and
right and takes this opportunity to recommend this recreational project;

|OWnC THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Chairman and Members of the Accomack-
'orthampton Planning District Commission, Accomac, Virginia, that:

.1. The Accomack-Northampton Planning District Commission endorses the
|. designation of Paramore Island as a Wildlife'Refugeoand NationailSeashore through
resolution and other supporting activity as they shall from time to time deem
appropriate.

APPENDIX A (continued)

.2. .r~le Accomack-Northampton Planning District Comamission requests that the
United States Department of The Interior, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
and The National Park Service, accept this endorsement and designation.

3. The United States Department of The Interior, Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife and The National Park Service,'shall place on their priorities list
the purchase andmaintenance ofaraoreldif. geandNationaL.
Seasihore fin -AccomackCCotmty qn Virginia's Eastern Shore.

'AYES: Passed unanimously

NAYES: None s

A copy teste
CHA IIMAN

EXF UTIVE DIRECTOR

3,a~ '~ BAPPENDIX B
United States Dcpa'trnet of t Interior

- OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
.,~~ ~ WASHIlNGTON, D.C. 20240

JAN 1 9 1976

Dear Mr. Noonan:

;e are pleased to respond to your letter of December 4, 1975,
requesting information as to Departmental interest in establishing
a National Recreation Area on Parramore Island4, Parramore Island
was among the major islands reviewed in a preliminary report entitled
Virginiavs Barrier Islands. This report was completed as part of
the response to the President's directive of November 1966 to
Secretary of the Interior to undertake a nationwide inventory of
America's islands. The final publication of this report to the
President, Islands of America, in discussing the Virginia Barrier
Islands including Parramore, states: "The Virginia Islands provide
an outstanding opportunity for seashore recreation development in
the public interest... ,"

Beyond these citations and study references, there has been no
further evidence of Departmental interest in Parramore Island.
The Department has no plans at this time for considering designation
of Parramore Island as a National Seashore. Nor, to the best of
my knowledge, is there any State action underway to accomplish
this objective.

Sincerely yours,

I .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(sgd) jvma

ikSstani Secretary of the Interior

}Mr. Patrick F. Noonan, President
The Nature Conservancy
1800 North Kent Street
Arlington, Virginia 22209

APPENDIX C

R6S6LUTION REGAu.ING PARR i.ORE ISLAND AS A NATIONAL SEAStHORE
I

Whereat, The Eastern Shore of Virgilnia Chamber of Commerce, Inc. has
recognised the need for more Dublic recreational areas and activities and
access for the people tG these areas and activities; and

Whereas, the Accomack County Board of Supervisors in its Overall
Economic Development Plan pointed out the need for recreational use of
__ Parralore Island; and

Whereas, the Northampton County Board of Sucervisors in its Overall
Economic Development Plan pointed out the need for recreational use of
Parramore Island; and

Whereas, the Accomack-Nlorthampton Planning District Commission ,i22
pointed out the need for recreational use of Parramore Island in its; (1)
Land Use Report, (2) Housing Report, and (3) Open Space and Recreation Report; and

Whereas, the Delmanra Advisory Council in its Overall Economic Development
Plan pointed out the need for recreational use of Parramore Island, and

Whereas, the Virginia Outdoor Recreation Commission in its initial report
pointed out the need for recreational use of Parramore Island; and

Whereas, the Area Redevelopment Administration (Federal) study done by
Old Dominion University pointed out the need for recreational use of Parramore
Island; and

Whereas, the Economic Development Administration (Federal) study done by
Spindletop Research Inc., pointed out the need for recreational use of Parramore
Island, and

Whereas, the Parks and Recreation Commission of Accomack County in its
earliest recommendations pointed out the need for recreational use of
Parrarmore Island,

I NOW, THLEFOREP BE IT RESOLVED, that the Eastern Shore of Virginia
Chamber of Commerce, Inc., with the awareness of the above listed plans,
studies and suggestions, recommend the following; that,

(1) The Department of the Interior of the United States be urgently
requested to create a NIational Seashore with proper access on Parramore
Island, and that the whole of Parramore Island be acquired by the United
States so that its use by future generations cannot be hampered.

(2) The Nature Conservancy be asked to support this quest of the people
of the Eastern Shore of Virginia and transfer ownership of Parramore Island
to the United States so that the cost of creating such a great National
Seashore to display our wild heritage to future generations might be diminished.

APPENDIX C (continued)I

(3) The Boar:ds of Supervisors of Accoma'ck and llorthamroton Count ies I
consider the creation of a 'National Seashore on Parraimore Island a 'N-a
012E PRIORITY PROTLOT" and. to assign the combined forces of the Accomack-
liortha~mpton Pla'nning District Comnission #122 and -the Commissions of Parks and
Recreatioft of both counqties to work for the successful conclusion of quch a
project.I

* (4) The Boards of Supervisors and the mrembershiD. of the Eastern Shor-e of
Virginia Chamber of Commerce, Inc., impress upon the appropiate agencies
within the Commonwealth of Virginia that the creatlion of a iNational Seashore
~on Parra'2ore Island is considered a 111UM1YB ONE PRIORITY PROJE'CT" and that
their, full support and assistance is expected.

(5) JThe EaStern Shore of Virginia Chamqber of Cozzmerce, inca work withI
every interested organization and municipality to secure resolution-s of approval
:Cor a National Seashore on Parramore Island.3

(6) in thr interest of unity of purpose, !Dho manner in which the National
Seashore with --roner access on Parra3-qore Island is created and develop'ed 'Do Thft
to the NationrJa z'ar-j'ice i' (f,nt3 iinj'l ki Iiteior-the ex.pert~s iiiI
the f ield.

Adopted October 22, 1974 3

APPENDIX D

DRAFT

COASTAL ZONE REGIONAL
ASSESSMENT REPORT

ACCOMACK-N ORTHAMPTON
PLANNING DISTRICT

September, 1975

Prepared in cooperation
with the Planning District
Commission by the Division
of State Planning and Community
Affai r s

APPENDIX D (continued)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . ... p. 1

ASSESSMENT PURPOSE AND FRAMEWORK . . . p. 2

SUMMARY OF ISSUE DISCUSSIONS .......p. 4

PROGRAM EMPHASIS AND PARTICIPATION. . p. 13
SECOND YEAR

INTRODUCTION
APPENDIX D (continued)

Since March of this year, the Division of State Planning and

Community Affairs (DSPCA) has been meeting monthly with the Regional

Advisory Committee (RAC) of Planning District 22 to define and discuss

the primary problems and concerns of the region with regard to

coastal resources and coastal development. These meetings were

intended to provide an opportunity for frank and candid discussion of

community attitudes pertaining to coastal issues with a detailed analysis

of pertinent factual data conducted in the coming year. This technical

evaluation will serve to confirm, support or modify the perceived state

of coastal affairs identified in this initial attitudinal assessment.

The value of this process can best be expressed by the RAC

participants, which in Planning District Commission (PDC) 22, embraced

the entire PDC membership. Views as to the net benefit of the discus-

sion process vary. While all reluctantly accepted state participation

in the program and consider the basic intent of the program contrary

to the principles of local decision making and governance, they have

welcomed the forum to express their definitive views as to substance

and form the program should assume. The success of this dialogue is

founded upon the willingness and cooperation of the participants to outline

their attitudes and reactions to coastal issues in an honest, sincere and

direct fashion. The following material is presented as a descriptive

summary of the framework for and concerns raised in those discussions.

APPENDIX D (continued)
ASSESSMENT PURPOSE AND FRAMEWORK I

In order to provide a participatory mechanism that reflected I

civic attitudes and issues and supplied basic information and continuity |

to the process, each of the nine (9) PDC's were asked to establish Regional

Advisory Commnittees with representatives from local governments, I

the private sector and various interest groups. PDC 22 responded to

this request by appointing the Planning District Conmmnission as the

Regional Advisory Committee (RAC).

Obiectives:

The objectives of the CZM ISSUE ASSESSMENT vwere to:

- Engender an understanding of CZM in each PDC within the
coastal region and provide a forum for increasing communi-
cation as to the basic intent and status of the program;

-Provide an opportunity for local and regional participants |
to identify CZM issues and conflicts in the region and
supply suggested approaches for dealing with those issues;

Present a system for local and regional governments and
their citizenry to recommend primary elements of the State
program and their respective role and responsibility in its
development and implementation.

I
Relationship to Program Development:

The regional assessments will contribute to the overall develop- I

ment of the program in a variety of ways. The State assessment, 3

conducted simultaneously with the nine (9) regional assessments,

will focus on similar issues, relationships, conflicts and

management resolutions relating to coastal resources. The juxta- |

position of the State analysis of these issues and the regional view-

point will illuminate many critical dimensions of the management

APPENDIX D (continued)

needs and problems in the early stages of program development,
I
including:

1. Conflict Determination in Coastal Resource Utilization

I / In the analysis of coastal issues, conflicts betwveen
resource uses emerged. The investigation of possible
tradeoffs and the resolution of these conflicts in priority
and permissible land and water uses will be a major
I \ activity in the Znd year of the program.

2. Regional perceptions of regional and Statewide Coastal
Issues

The Regional Advisory Committees (RAC's) identified
Regional Coastal Related problems. Some of these issues,
while regional in nature, also involved problems that were
of regional or Statewide significance. Therefore, the
perspective of the RAC and the region as to which issues
are important to their coastal areas and acceptable
techniques for dealing with these problems will be valu-
able in developing the substance of the management
program.

3. Regional Suggestions and Attitudes Relative to Potential
Management Approaches

Through the assessment process attitudes concerning
existing management techniques and regulations available
to or employed in each of the nine (9) regions were dis-
cussed. When juxtaposed against the regional and State-
wide issues brought forth by each RAC, management gaps,
conflicts or duplications will be delineated. Suggested
approaches for coordinating present mechanisms and
attitudes toward devising new systems will be instrumental
to the determination of a viable management program and
will be a major activity during year two.

-3-
APPENDIX D (continued)

Methodology: ,

After an introductory session with the RAG at which time the basic I

program direction was reviewed, the participants were asked to indicate

the five (5) primary coastal issues they believed to exist on Eastern I

Shore. Using these responses the State staff, with assistance from the

PDC, began to compile preliminary information on each issue topic. This

information was presented at successive' meetings and used as a departure

point for discussion. Basic questions addressed to each topic included: I

Is this a major concern on the shore?

If so, what is the extent of the problem?

What is the area of impact and who is effected? I

How is the problem being dealt with at present?

Is this an effective means of dealing with the situation?

If not, what are the problems? i

The attitudes, opinions and concerns derived in this manner were

organized into issue statements and circulated to the membership for

comment. I

This report with changes made by the RAC will then be submitted

by the PDC as the regional assessment of coastal issues in the Accomack-

Northampton area. (See diagram A for first year program schedule

and program relationships. ) I

The following description of issues is an expansion of those initial

statements made in RAC discussions with the suggested additions and

modifications. -

liagraml A

| ' SCIHEDULE FOR ASSESS]\LENT AC'TIVITY COMPLETION
APPENDIX D (continued)
First Program Year

PLAiNN'ING DISTRIC T
COMMISSION AND . REGIONA
Ao~~~irss~oN ~E:ND REGIONAL
REGIONAL ADVISORY ASSESSMENT
C OMMIlTTEE _
iReview and Comment (September 30)

.DRAFT REGIONAL
ASSESSMENT
- issue identification
- conflicts

(September 15) VIRGINIA
V .COASTAL ZONE
MANAGEMENT
ID-A-TA /INFORMATION ASSESS IENT

(October 31)

T ORKING SESSIONS -
STATE ASSESSMENT
w/ PDC 22
OF COASTAL ZONE
MA N'AGEMENT
. ISS UES

(September 301

STATE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
.State Representatives
.RAC Representative.

DATA STATElVIDE
g |.COLLECTION INPUBLIC
: ..INPUT

I~~~~OLCXNf

-4-

APPENDIX D (continued) I

SUMMARY OF ISSUE DISCUSSIONS

General Statements

During the discussions held with the RAG, a number of general

concerns that extended beyond the narrow focus of a single topic were

repeated continually.

ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: I

Paramount to any specific coastal concern identified was the I

belief that the local decision-making process should be maintained and

any attempt to design a program which would alter this premise would I

be strongly resisted. Participants emphatically stated that localities I

could accept additional responsibilities, even in the light of growing

local responsibilities, if sufficient funds were made available for that I

purpo se. .-

Specific instances of State insensitivity to Shore requests for plan-

ning assistance, both at the regional and local level, were cited. The I

participants noted obvious contradictions between State legislation I

requiring local action and the funds provided Shore communities to carry

out these mandates.

COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING: I

Pressure from small communities for planning assistance from the 3

regional staff and requests for aid from both Accomack and Northampton

c ounties for completion of a comprehensive plan have increased the need

for additional fiscal resources. I

- 5_
APPENDIX D (continued)

State Planning funds vis-a-vis the HUD 701 program, was the target

of many complaints with pointed charges of insufficient and inequitable

funding. The RAC agreed to support the concept of comprehensive plan-

ning performed at the local level if adequate financial support was made

available for that purpose.

PROGRAM COORDINATION:

Participants forcibly indicated that the gross proliferation of federal

and State programs was placing unnecessary and undue hardships upon

private enterprise and the citizen community. The over-regulation and

duplication characteristics of programs, ranging from water quality to

erosion control, were infringing upon basic individual freedoms and

resulting in the waste of the tax dollar. If the Coastal Zone Management

Program could provide a mechanism to bring together these diffused and

uncoordinated proerams into a more unified approach to coastal problem

solving, it would be supported. Conversely, if the program solely

succeeded in producing another laver of administrative and bureaucratic

review, it would stimulate organized opposition.

-6-

APPENDIX D (continued) I

Views on Specific Issues, - I

In addition to discussing general concerns with the development of

a State coastal program, a number of specific issues were addressed in

detail (see methodology p. 3 for discussion format). The issue categories

were Identified by the participants at the onset of this process. The sum- I

mary statements that follow represent collective opinions expressed during I

RAC sessions.

RECREATION:

Beach Access I

The availability of public beaches was cited as a major concern by -

the participants. Public access to the beaches along both sides of the

Shore is restricted save the (2) public beaches located atAssateague and

Cape Charles . While this shortage severely limits the number of Shore |

residents that have access to the beach, it also was noted as a factor

influencing the growth of tourism.

Acquisition of the Barrier Islands by the Nature Conservancy, while |

viewed by the RAC as a positive action, will delay or perhaps prevent the

transformation of the Islands into additional public beach along the seaside.

The membership expressed strong interest in the conversion of Paramore I

Island, the largest and most stable island within the system, to a national

seashore or park. No action is expected by the Conservancy or the federal

government until a study of the island's eco-systems and the Shore's I

attitudes regarding island useage has been completed. |

APPENDIX D (continued)

A conflict p'3vading this discussion of public beach access to to the

Barrier Islands and along the Shore was the issue of private property

rights vs. the local and regional utilization of the beaches. (Rights of

property owners extend. to the low water mark. )

Recognizing this interest in the Barrier Islands, there are signifi-

cant property holdings in both counties owned by the federal and State

government that could be developed as public beach or recreational

areas. A role for the Coastal Zone Program was seen in facilitating

administrative procedures permitting the conversion of these properties.

in conjunction with PDC and local government action, to recreational

Iuses.

IWater-Related Recreational Facilities

A shortage of public recreational parks surfaced during these dis-

cussions along with a noted increase in the development of private camp-

grounds. One of the most urgent and controversial recreational problems,

however, deals with the provision and maintenance of boat ramps. Diffi-

culties stem from:

insufficient facilities to service demand;

inadequate upkeep of facilities and infrequent maintenance
dredging of surrounding channels;

lack of personnel to supervise peak season usage;

disregard for personal property of adjacent land-owners; and

influx of boat users from out of state resulting in facility
overcrowding which prompted one county to levy a fee on
non-Virginia users.

APPENDIX D (continued)

Growth of marina and sport fishing facilities were, seen as dependent upon!

harbor improvements, State assistance and the location of the Intercoastal

Waterway (the Virginia Inside Passage) along the ocean side of the shore.

The Corps of Engineers presently is conducting an environmental impact

study to determine the advisability of the waterway project.

WETLANDS:

The Eastern Shore of Virginia has extensive and productive wetlands i

that extend along the Bay and sea boundaries of the Shore. Because of

the large acreage embraced by the wetlands, the enactment of State

wetlands legislation had a major impact upon the region. The law, which

has been in effect since 1972, was seen as too restrictive and time consum- i

ing. The participants idaentified the difficulties as emerging from the State

overview and not the local implementation of the program.

FLOOD, EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL:

Flood Plain Delineation

Given the elevation of the Shore, large portions of the region may be

subject to flooding. The delineation of the flood plain, however, is quite

difficult as rainfall, wind and tide variables combine to produce flooding

conditions, making flood plain delineation and forecasting most difficult.

Realizing these complications, the RAC indicated basic satisfaction with

present activities involving flood insurance and control. I

Natural Erosion

Natural shoreline erosion is proceeding at an alarming rate along both

sides of the Shore from the Maryland line to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge

APPENDIX D (continued)

Tunnel. Extreme examples include eroding action along' the Barrier

Islands where the sand remains in a fluid state, constantly changing the

configuration of the islands and the adjacent channels and Tangier Island

I which has experienced an annual erosion rate of 18 feet per year since

the mid 1800's,

The RAC remains skeptical as to the commitment to assist the Shore

in reversing these serious erosion problems. It was recognized, however,

that State agencies had begun to employ technical and financial resources to

analyze site specific problems and to devise reclamation or prevention

devices to reverse or retard the erosion process.

INDUCED EROSION/ SEDIMENT CONTROL

Management techniques and regulatory provisions for controlling

erosion emanating from land alterations and construction were severely

-criticized in RAC discussions. Particular opposition was raised regarding

the Statewide Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. Objections in-

eluded arguments that: (a) the contour of the shore did not warrant such

stringent controls; (b) the ordinance requiring permits unnecessarily

encompassed small commercial projects and minor building additions,

serving only to increase building costs and delay project completion; and

process previously enacted.

AGRICULTURE:

While a proportionately high number of Shore residents are engaged

- 10 -
APPENDIX D (continued) i

in activities directly or indirectly related to agriculture and while primary I

use of land is vested in agriculture, the RAC was hesitant to make a

strong link between coastal problems and agriculture. The key point was

made that both developers and farmers were competing for the best agri- I

cultural land. The suggestion accompanying the statement urged that

development be channeled initially away from prime agricultural land.

WATER SUPPLY, QUALITY AND SEWAGE TREATMENT:

Water Supply

In discussion of residential and economic growth potential on the Shore,

the question arose as to the sufficiency of the water supply to support an

extremely large influx of people and industry. A debate ensued as to the I

present supply of fresh water and the draw down capability prior to salt

water intrusion. After a lengthy conversation, the PDC voted to recommend

that funds be made available through the CZM proram or associated State

sources to conduct a geological survey of fresh water supplies on Eastern

Shore.

Water Quality and Sevwaae Treatment I

Although water quality was not reviewed at length, the problem of sewage |

treatment on the Shore was identified as a major problem area, particularly

with regard to its influence upon the shellfish and fishing industry. The

presence of high BOD levels in certain Shore locations, in addition to the |

construction of marinas near shellfish grounds, have resulted in the closing

of a number of world famous oyster and clam beds.

~ APPENDIX D (continued)

The upgrading of sewage facilities is scheduled to begin in the near

future wvith the assistance of federal funds earmarked for Chincateague,
/
Cape Charles and Tangier. Members of the RAC remained pessimistic

of the/impact suchfacilities would have upon reopening heretofore pro-

I
ductive shellfish areas.

HARBOR DEVELOPMENT AND OCS ACTIVITIES AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY:

Harbor Development

The recent completion of a project directed toward refurbishing the

Cape Charles harbor constitutes the major harbor improvement activity

undertaken on the Shore. Renovation of docking accommodations and

channel dredging for small harbors, including: Saxis; Onancock; Oyster

and Wachapreague was supported by the entire RAG.

OCS Activities

The development of adequate harbor facilities and the accommodation

of potential OCS operations could prove to be closely connected. Given the sites

selected for OGS exploration, the possibility remains that an Eastern Shore

Harbor might serve as an operations base servicing offshore facilities.

The length of the supplyline from the Shore may prove the determining

factor in the location of an operations base. In any event, the disruption

incurred by such an activity is seen as negligible, both by industry and

the RAG. At this juncture it is impossible to predict what ancillary in-

dustries may be attracted to the Shore in addition to the Brown & Root

proposal. The RAC recorded their sentiments as favoring any OCS

operations that proved to be compatible with Shore communities.

APPENDIX D (continued)

Economic Activitr

A discussion of a questionnaire distributed to the RAC which solicited

responses concerning economic development attitudes clearly pointed out

that the membership's belief that the type, location and intensity of develop- I

ment must be analyzed on a site-by-site basis. Although the provision

of public facilities, water supply and access were seen as factors in-

fluencing industrial location, it was assumed that industry would gravitate I

toward areas where sufficient resources and facilities were available.

TRANSPORTATION: . . -

Mobility from the Shore to the mainland has been facilitated by the

construction of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel. Reliance of the tunnel i

for commercial and individual transport, however, has become a signifi-

cant problem during periods when the tunnel was being repaired. Con-

tingency plans have been drawn up and are in the implementation stage in

the event bridge-tunnel access is interrupted. I

Similarly the abandonment of the Penn Central line connecting the

Shore to the Northeast and by car float to the Virginia mainland could

result in transportation and economic dislocations. The outlook for acqui- I

sition of the system by Southern Railway Company is extremely favorable -

at present.

-13-

APPENDIX D (continued)

PROGRAM EMPHASIS AND PARTICIPATION SECOND YEAR

This information' obtained on both the broad concepts of coastal manage-

ment and the more detailed review of specific coastal problems will be used

in: (a) focusing the data gathering effort pursued in the second year of the

program; and (b) molding the boundaries of the program by defining sub-

stantive problem areas.

The data collection and program definition activities will constitute

a VALIDATION process intended to confirm, negate and/or amplify the

issues raised in the regional and Statewide assessments as well as analyze

existing policies and programs impacting upon these issues. (See diagranl

B.)

Continued participation by the RAC will be most useful in conducting

this validation. In the instance of PDC 22, the sessions with the RAC

would continue but on a less frequent basis. The primary purpose for the

continued meetings with the RAC would be to receive comments as to con-

clusions emanating from the data analysis and to obtain reactions to various

management approaches. *

Conversations with the RAC in PDC 22 throughout the last six (6)

months have indicated that, while they have serious reservations about the

program, avid participation is essential if local governments are to inject

their views into the decision-making process.

I It is anticipated that the scope of the participation program would be enlarged
within the region to include sessions with local governments, planning com-
missions and citizen groups ih addition to those held with the RAG.

- 14-
APPENDIX D (continued) I

PDC 22, therefore, supports the retention of the RAC structure
during the second program year in order to maintain an avenue of communi-
cationi by which they can communicate their ideas concerning Coastal Zone
Manaogement to the respective State agencies in addition to requesting the I
provision of funds to the PDC to assist with second year activities. I

APPENDIX E

POSITION PAPER
OF PDC #22

ON THE FUTURE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

ACOOMACK-NORTHAMPTON PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION
Accomac, Virginia

August 1975

APPENDIX E (continued)

INTRODUCTION

FEDERAL ACT.

The U. S, Coastal Zone Management Act requires states to identify the

boundaries of their coastal zone, develop a process to determine appropriate

land and water uses in the zone, designate areas of particular concern,

establish priority uses within specific areas of the zone, determine intetr-

governmental arrangements needed to conduct an effective management program,

and evaluate the adequacy of existing regulations for proper land and water

use management.

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT BY THE STATE.

Responsibility for development of Virginia's Coastal Zone Management

Program has been given to the Division of State Planning and Community Affairs

(DSPCA), Commerce and Resources Section, and the Virginia Institute of Marine

Science (VIMS). As the lead agency, DSPCA will coordinate most of the planning

effort; VIMS will provide support in terms of marine-related research, data

collection and technical advice.

OBJECTIVES BY THE STATE.

Generally the three-year planning effort is designed to accomplish five

major objectives:

An Assessment of Public and Private Activities in the Coastal Zone: This

task will identify the roles and responsibilities of private, local, multi-

county, state and federal organizations in Virginia's coastal zone.

APPENDIX E (continued)

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Data Collection and Analysis: In support of overall program develop-

ment, a pertinent data base is being assembled. DSPCA will collect and analyze

fast land resource data and assess the prevailing socioeconomic conditions in

the coastal zone. VIMS is compiling information related to marine life,

oceanic and estuarine water conditions and areas of special concern in the

coastal zone.

Problem Identification: Using the knowledge derived from the previous

tasks, a list of specific problems will be identified. Program goals and

objectives will then be developed in light of these problems.

Development of Alternative Strategies: Alternative methods for the

attainment of the desired goals will be developed.

Recommendations for Action: Based on an appraisal of the alternative

strategies, specific recommendations for action will be made to Virginia's

legislature.

STATE (DSPCA) LIAISON PERSONS.

Mr. B. C. Leynes, Jr. and Ms. Stewart H. Gamage have been appointed by the

State to serve as liaison persons with the Regional Advisory Committee of

PDC #22.

yl~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~s~~~~~~~~~.:
VIMS.

Mr. John Pleasants, Associate Director, VIMS, is the liaison person rep-

resenting this agency. VIMS and DSPCA share, jointly, the responsibility for

planning the coastal zone management for the State of Virginia.

REGIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

The Accomack-Northampton Planning District Commission designated itself

as the Regional Advisory Committee for Planning District #22 of Virginia.

APPENDIX E (continued)

!~~~~~~~
LOCAL CONCERN

M~mbers of PDC #22 and the public in general view with great concern the

pending Coastal Zone Management Program to be prepared and enacted by the State

of Virginia. The concern is two fold: in general, the need for such program;

and in particular, the specific issues to be included into the program.

GENERAL CONCERN

I. Any coastal zone management program makes sense only if it means

a simplification and not a further complication of land, water, and resource

use activities in the coastal area.

At the present time, any use activity in the coastal area may mean app-

Lications to and decisions by the Army Corps of Engineers, Virginia Institute of

Marine Science, Wetlands Board, Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Authority,

Water Control Board, Planning and Zoning Commission, etc. etc. Each application

requires extra expenses and long delays in time.

Local people are concerned that a coastal zone management program would

add an additional bureaucratic procedure on top of the existing ones.

As a solution to simplified administration of land, water, and resource

use activities related to coastal area, the Commission recommends that all

applications be submitted to just one local authority which would then further

process the application, obtaining simultaneously comments from the various

Federal, State and local agencies before a decision is made and the requirements

or conditions of approval be listed. This would greatly reduce the expenses

and wasted time of the applicant. This single local authority could be the

local wetlands board, or a similar agency.

APPENDIX E (continued)

2. The local people are viewing with increasing concern that more and more

decision making authority is being taken away from local agencies and given to

state and federal agencies far removed from the spot, with little knowledge of

the circumstances and little knowledge 6f the needs and problems of the local

people.

The Planning Commission, therefore, strongly recommends that any decision

making body dealing with coastal zone management, be composed of local people,

representing local interests. The Commission feels that in the past 300 years

local people took good care of the coastal areas and resources and they are

quite able to do so in the future too. Of course, the Commission understands

that a coordination of interests of a wider domain is necessary and cooperation

-with state and federal agencies cannot be negated.

3. In order to facilitate the coastal zone management, the Commission recommends

that an exact delineation of the coastal zone be made. All land, water, and

resource use activities in the coastal zone would be supervised by the local

coastal zone management authority (Wetlands Board or similar agency). All

activity in areas outside of coastal zone would be under the supervision of the

local Planning and Zoning Commission. There would be no overlap of authority

in jurisdictions.

The Commission realizes that achievement of the above recommendations

would involve changing existing federal and state laws.

APPENDIX E (continued)3

SPECIFIC ISSUES.

The Commission recognizes the following problems and concerns related to

coastal areas that need solution in context of the Coastal Zone ManagementI

Program'.3

I. Erosion and Sediment Control.

Natural Erosion. Erosion from natural causes is proceeding at an alarming

rate, particularly on the Barrier Islands, on the Bay shore' line and on Tangier3

Island

Massive shifting of sand by natural currents is resulting in constant3

natural channel modifications and cause continual dredging requirements.

Erosion due to Land Development Activities. Erosion due to man madeI

activities and land disturbances cause very little erosion problems on the3

Eastern Shore of Virginia-due to the level contour of the land and, therefore,

the Commission opposes the stringent requirement of'the.Soil Erosion and Sed-

iment Control measures of the State law.

2. Water Pollution.

(a) Water Pollution Caused by Agriculture. Farming on agriculturalI

land causes water pollution in two respects: pesticides, animal wastes and3

other pollutants are washed into the rivers, marshlands and open bays~ and

affects marine life.

Sanitary waste from inadequately serviced labor camps.

(b) Water Pollution Caused by Sanitary Waste. The very slow program of I

the Water Quality Management Plan designed to provide adequate sewerage systems3

for PDC #22 will cause continuing pollution of the waters in the next 10 or 20

years.

APPENDIX E (continued)

Only a more aggressive program with increased federal financial help could

solve the problem.

motor boats can cause pollution of the waters. Adequate measures should be

taken to prevent it, or to minimize it.

3. Flood Control.

Flood danger in coastal areas and even in inland areas does exist due to

periodical high tidal flows or hurricanes. Adequate legislation to prohibit

any construction in these areas could meet the problem.

4. Shortage of Recreational Areas.

There is a definit shortage of public recreational areas near water. We

refer here to parks with picnic, beach, fishing and camping facilities.

5. Access to Open Waters and Barrier Islands.

The only beach open to the public is on Assateague Island. It is an

ironic situation that the Eastern Shore with approximately 200 miles of shore

line has practically no public access to the waters. The establishment of

public recreation areas could solve the problem.

6. Wetlands.

State laws regulating wetland management are seen by the Commission as

too restrictive and time consuming. Difficulty seen with State overview,

not local administration.

APPENDIX E '(continued)_

7. Fresh Water Supply.

Fresh water supply depends on the capacity of ground water aguifers.

There are indications that the ground water supply is limited. Consequently,

the industrial and residential potential of PDC #22 is also limited. The danger

exists that overuse of ground water may result in salt water intrusion. A de-

tailed survey would be necessary to ascertain the water supply.

8. Wharf Facilities.

Improvement of docking accommodations and channel improvements are needed

for all small harbors along the shore� State assistance is needed to achieve

better docking facilities.

9o Ferry Service.

There is no transportation facility presently between the lower west shore

of the Chesapeak Bay and the Delmarva Peninsula. A ferry service should be con-

sidered between the Eastern Shore and the west shore of the Bay. On the Eastern

Shore it could be based in Onancock.

10. Summer Cottage and Camp Site Subdivisions.

There is an increasing demand for land subdivisions in coastal areas. These

cater mostly for people wanting lots for summer cottages or camp sites. Some of

the existing subdivisions contain several thousand lots. In most cases no public

sanitary facilities and no public water supply are-provided. There is need also

for increased police and fire protection. These subdivisions are a potential

source of water pollution, health hazard and destruction of maritime life. They

may cause also traffic problems-on the narrow secondary roads.

APPENDIX E (continued)

11. Fishing and Hunting.

Comprehensive regulations concerning commercial and sport fishing (includ-

ing clams, oysters, crabs, etc.) and hunting are needed.

12. Protection of Small Sea-Food Industries.

Existing too-restrictive regulations on sea-food industries are putting

many small local sea food industries out of business. Regulations that pro-

tect the small industries are needed.

13. Other Problems,

Other potential problems are in coastal areas:

(a) Water related private recreational facilities (private beaches,

marinas, fishing piers, boat ramps).

(b) Industries. (Oil related industries, boat factories, etc.)

APPENDIX. F
A FIVE YEAR~ CCO.{i"WNITY DEVELOPM',ENT PLAN FOR PARKS AND RECREATIONI

ACCOMACK COUNTY3

PRELIMINARY STAGES >

1975 1. Acqu5zition o6. JteaZt p'topet~ty 6o
a.I County 'PaU a.t Wz2op.z IsZcand (Exce.s~s Land From NASA) U
.6) Cou~nty Pwtfk a.t Saxia TsZancL (Comrnu~nity p'tojer-t)
el Ce~nt~aZ RecAea.t-ianaZ aznd aZZ-rpuxpose. &cmp~.ex in -the.
Ceen-t'a2. Ac~ccmaczk area.
d) Re~cxeat.L~ono Cuten.t at C"'co~teagu~e

2. Consttzuct~cn o~ ne acZ-Utie.is
a) PiZcnic Sites azt waiJ~p.
bi Picnic~ &ites a.,t Saxi5
el PiZcnic Sitez a~t Cetttat- ComnpZexI
d) A~thPe-W- Fie~ds a-t Wa&Co ps
el Migh-t So6A'baU FiLe.d
* ~~~~Rerea-tionaZ &Lict'ni on. Ta no iA TIzZand
g) Re eetio naZ Bui2dintg -o i Chinco~tea~gu~e
h) Cejittacz ComnpZe~x BuiZdLbtg

. 3. Renovation o4 Exi.6ting Sitez
a.) Te~nnis~ Cout-t a.t A~t~civt~c, fu-lgt Sc~hooZ
6) Ten~niz Cou,~t azt Cen.)Wcat f~g h SchooZ
e) Some. .chooZ p&tqygtound-siLte.
197 1. Con~sttuc-t news jaciZiti,
* ~aI) &4&mi~ng PooZ at Cerzt'wJ. Comnpt-ex -
* b~~) AthZeti- FLetcd a~t Cent'taE Cornpt-ex

* ~~d) MtvtWe. and Hiddig TuaiaJ2 at Centt~aZ Cornpte-xI

2. Renova~tlon
a.) a2Z p~ayggkound zitez~s.

.1977 1. N4ew Fact~tiez
a) Ptay,%wud A~ea. a~t Cenit'aZ Cornp~ex
b) Field AMchvzy Range- at Cent~a2 Comnptex
1.9i 1. New FacLUitiez
a.) 18 lote., PatL 3, execuztive. GC6 Cou'z~e., Ce~nt'taZ ComptexI

2. Re~nova-tion
a) AthZetic~ Fi~etd~s

1919 1. gmw FacULtyj
4County Pak. in LoweiL Acomnacf~ Count~ I

In addition .to. the. a~ov~e, dung tk~z~ pek.vod, tCo Pwaepc tw-1tP,& on t,-
utabZUsFien-t o6 bikeways~ ahd bikeettait5; ac~ce.5s.,%oad ibtto th__
Pa~k at Pcvdzeu 011ath and intCo Coun~ty Pak.A .that be-come. Aeazttiez<,

APPENDIX G
CHARTER~ AGREEMENT OF THE
ACCOMACK-NORTHAMPTON PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION
OCTOBER 1, 1973

This revised Charter Agreement to reorganize a Planning District
Commission made this 15th day of August, 1973 by and between the under-
signed governmental subdivisions as authorized by the Virginia Area
Development Act (Title 15.1, Chapter 34, Sections 15.1-1400, et seq.,
Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended;

NOW THEREFORE'it is agreed that:

ARTICLE I

Name, Location, Authority, Purpose

Section 1. The name of this organization shall be the Accomack-
Northampton Planning District Commission, hereinafter
called the "Commission."

Section 2. The principal office of the COMMISSION shall be in
Accomac, Virginia. The location of the principal
office may be changed by the concurrence of three-
forths of the COMMISSION members present at a regular
meeting, provided that the clerk of the governing
body of each member governmental subdivision has been
notified of the contemplated relocation in writing at
least thirty days before such meeting.

Section 3. The COMMISSION shall be a public body corporate and po-
litic with all the powers and duties granted to it
by the Virginia Area Development Act.

Section 4. The purpose of the COMMISSION shall be to promote the
orderly and efficient development of the physical, social,
and economic elements of the District by planning, and
encouraging and assisting governmental subdivisions to
plan for the future. It shall not be the duty of the
COMMISSION to perform the functions necessary to im-
plement the plans and policies established by itor to
furnish governmental services to the District. No
action of the COMMISSION shall affect the powers and
duties provided to the COMMISSION by law.

ARTICLE 1I

Membership

Section 1. COMMISSION members shall be appointed by the respective
governing bodies of those political subdivisions which
are parties to this Charter Agreement provided, however
that at least a majority, but not substantially more than
a majority, of the COMMISSION'S members shall be elected
officials of the governing bodies of the governmental
subdivisions within the Planning District with each
participating county, city, and town of more than 3,500
population having at least one representative, and the
other members being qualified voters and residents
of the District, who hold no office elected by the people.

APPENDIX G (continued)

Section 2. Governmental subdivisions which are parties to this
Charter Agreement shall appoint members to the COMMISSION
on the following basis:

Elected Members Non-Elected Members

Accomack County 5 2
Northampton County 3 2

Section 3. Vacancies on the COMMISSION shall-be filled for the
i unexpired term in the same manner as the original
appointment was made.

Section 4. Any member of the COMMISSION shall be eligible for
reappointment but may be removed for cause by the
governing body which appointed him.

ARTICLE III

Terms of Office and Voting Rights

Section 1. The terms of office of COMMISSION members who are also
members of the governing bodies shall be coincident with
their elected terms of office, or such shorter terms
as their governing bodies shall determine. The terms
of office of the non-elected members shall be for one
year. Non-elected members serve at the pleasure of
the governing bodies and may be removed with or without
cause shown, by the governing bodies at any time.
Initial appointments for the non-elected members shall
expire on June 30, 1974. All subsequent appointments of
non-elected members shall be for a term of one year and
expire on June 30 of each succeeding year.

Section 2. Each member of the COMMISSION shall have one ecual vote
in all matters before the COMMISSION.

ARTICLE IV

Officers of the Commission

Section 1. Officers of the COMMISSION shall consist of a Chairman
and Vice-Chairman who shall be elected by the member-
ship of the COMMISSION. The COMMISSION may elect other
officers.

Section 2. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be elected for
terms of one year or until their successors are elected.

Section 3. COMMISSION officers shall be eligible for re-election,
but may serve no more than three consecutive terms.

Section 4. The COMMISSION shall appoint an Executive Director
who shall be an employee of the COMMISSION and shall
serve at the pleasure of a maioritv of the membership.

APPENDIX G (continued)

ARTICLE V

Addition or Withdrawal of Members

Section 1. Any governmental subdivision within Planning District
Number 22 which is not a party to this Charter Agreement
at the effective date thereof may hereafter join the
COMMISSION provided that'such governmental subdivision
is eligible for membership and that it adopts and exe-
cutes this Agreement.

Section 2. Any governmental subdivision may withdraw from the
COMMISSION by submitting to the COMMISSION in writing,
at least 90 days before the end of the COMMISSION'S
then current fiscal year, a notice of intent to withdraw.
Such withdrawal shall not become effective until the
COMMISSION'S fiscal year has ended.

ARTICLE VI

Appointment of an Executive Committee and
Adoption of By-Laws

Section 1. The Commission may designate an Executive Committee
and delegate to it such power as the COMMISSION may
determine, provided that these powers are not incon-
sistent with provisions of the Virginia Area Development
Act.

Section 2. The COMMISSION may adopt By-Laws and such other rules
as it deems necessary to govern its operations.

ARTICLE VII

Meetings,

Section 1. The Commission shall hold regular meetings on a schedule
which will be determined by the membership.

Section 2. The COMMISSION may also hold such special meetings,
as it may deem necessary, at such times and places as
it may find convenient; and it may adjourn from time
to time as it may find convenient; and it may adjourn
from time to time as it may deem necessary.

Section 3. A special meeting of the COMMISSION shall be held when
requested by two or more of the members thereof. Such
request shall be in writing, addressed to the Executive
Director of the COMMISSION, and shall specify the time
and place of the meeting and the matters to be considered
at the meeting. Upon receipt of such request, the
Executive Director shall immediately notify each member
of the COMMISSION, in writing, to attend such meeting
at the time and place mentioned in the request. Such
notice shall specify the matters to be considered at

APPENDIX G (continued)

the meeting. The Executive 'Director shall send a copy
of such notice to each member of the COMMISSION by
registered mail not less than five days before the
day of the special meeting; provided, that the Executive
Director may have such notice served .on the members of
the COMMISSION by the Sheriffs of the respective Counties,
if he deems the same necessary to secure their attendance;
and provided further, that no matter not specified in
the notice shall be considered at such meeting, unless
all the members of the COMMISSION'are present.

Section 4. A simple majority of the membership of the COMMISSION
shall constitute a quorum at all meetings of the
COMMISSION.

Section 5. Meetings of the COMMISSION shall be open to the public,
however, the COMMISSION may hold executive meetings
in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom
of Information Act.

ARTICLE VIII

Amendments

Section 1. This Charter Agreement may be amended, supplemented or
superseded only by concurring resolutions of memberI
governmental subdivisions.

ARTICLE IX

Date of Organization

Section 1. The organization of the Accomack-Northampton Planning
District Commission shall be effective on the 1st day
of January, 1970 or at such time after this date when
the Charter Agreement has been adopted and signed by
that governmental subdivision whose population when
added to the aggregate population of those who have
already adopted and signed the Charter Agreement embraces
the majority of the population within Planning District
Number 22.

ARTICLE X

Date of Charter Revision

Section 1. This revised Charter Agreement shall be effective on
October 1, 1973. Any previous Charter provisions in-
consistant herewith shall terminate upon the effective
date of this Charter Agreement.

- -M- m - - - M- - - - -m - -

APPENDIX H

THE NATURE CONSERVANCY - PRESERVE ENDOWMENTS

As of Decemb'er 31, 1975

Preserve/State 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975

Devils Den, Conn. $ 540,062 $ 531,301 $ 527,898 $ 527,818 $ 529,112 $ 534,177
Butler Sanctuary, N.Y. 30,533 31,097 31,324 31,292 31,292 31,292
Dome Island, N.Y. 25,720. 26,290 26,461 26,440 26,440 26,440
Mianus River Gorge, N.Y. 84,231 93,261 91,649 96,607 101,030 102,548
Woodbourne Forest, N.Y. 29,190 29,190 31,234 31,997 33,632 34,580
Thompson Pond, N.Y. 1,098 1,175 1,311 1,412 1,672 3,235
Arthur Dayton Memorial, Me. 15,302 16,133 17,266 18,003 18,960 19,575
Rachel Carson Sea Coast, Me. 11,589 15,043. 16,250 17,016 17,813 17,586
Eastern New York 2,606 2,843 3,612 3,962 4,250 6,762
Lawrence Mem. Grasslands, Or. 15,481 26,025 28,098 29,298 23,766 9,389
IMIt. Meadow, Va. 103,307 113,337 124,498 128,753 133,511 121,732
Millcove, N.Y. 10,057 10,640 1,614 -- --
Rodney Johnson Wildlife, Ca. -- 282,761 286,628 286,356 286,356 286,356
Barr Hill Nature, Vt. -- 20,418 20,610 20,787 20,819
Burnham Creek, Conn. -- -- 3,395 8,083 9,605 15,157
Fernalds Neck, Me. . -- 79,994 81,516 83,599 85,993
Ledgewood Preserve, Me. -- -- 60,807 63,524 66,714 94,455
Henry Morgenthau Preserve, N.Y. -- 305,079 311,418 314,278 323,441
Preserve Stewardship -- 362,925 377,320 385,564
Meyer Sanctuary, N.Y. -- 200,029 209,772 214,454
Sunny Valley Farm, Conn. -- -- 250,000 487,988 499,329
Willa Cath Prairie, Ne. -- -- 10.193 10,569
Pambina Tract, Minn. - -- 15,667 16,245
Mt. Meadow Research, Va. -- -- -- - -- 15,000

TOTAL 869,176 1,179,096 1,657,536 2,497,059 2,803,657 2,874,698

APPENDIX I Revised.` 11-21

THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

PRESERVE MANAGEMENT MANUAL

Pages 11-2/ii-51

A. The Preserve Stewardship Committee and the Preserve Director3

The Preserve Stewardship Committee:

The Preserve Stewardship Committee is the mos~t vital component3
of the preserve management system. The Committee should be composed
of interested local citizens representing a cross section of ages as
well as vocational and social backgrounds. The membership of the
Committee may initially consist of the original Project Committed
Which was instrumental in establishing the preserve. One Committee
may have responsibility for more than one preserve, particularly
in a locale where separate preserves exist in relatively-closeI
proximity to one another.

The Committee has seven basic functions:I

1. Preserve the natural ecological integrity of the preserve.

2. Inventory the preserve and assemble information necessaryI
for the preparation of the Master Plan.

3. Develop use and stewardship policies for the preserve.I

4. Draft a Preserve Master Plan as described on page IV-i and
Addendum No. 4 of the Preserve Management Manual and submitI
to the Regional Office for approval.

5. Prepare the Annual Status Report and send a copy of the
completed Status Report to the chapter (if one exists) andI
the Regional Office.

6. Controlling and reviewing fiscal matters relating to theI
preserve, subject to the approval of the chapter board of
trustees (if one exists), and/or the Regional Director of
Land Stewardship.
7. Appointing (optional) and supervising a Preserve Director to
implement, on a day-to-day basis, the policies and concepts
contained within the Master Plan. If the Director is to
receive financial compensation, his hiring must be coordi-
nated through the Regional Office prior to any commitments
being made.
The chapter board of trustees will have the power to appoint and,
remove committee members. The c ommittee may wish to appoint certainI
members to handle particular activities such as educational programs,
public relations, posting, of boundaries, or finances.

Revised: II-3
APPENDIX I (continued) 3/5/76

The Director:

When appointed, the-Preserve Director is the official agent of
the Preserve Stewardship Committee. In many cases, he will be a
member of the committee. His responsibilities include:

1. Monitoring and controlling the day-to-day use of the preserve.

2. Enforcing the rules and regulations established by the commit-
tee.

3. Contractual supervision of all improvement and maintenance
work.

4. Providing a point of contract for information and problems
related to the preserve.

The Director should be a person able to act with sound judgement
and discretion since he is the duly authorized agent of the Conservancy
in matters specifically pertaining to the preserve. In questions of
enforcement, such as illegal trespass or entry, the Director will have
the support of the entire Conservancy.

Chapter Land Stewardship Committee

To provide for an overall program of preserve stewardship within
a qhapter area and to coordinate the stewardship of specific preserves,
an intermediate level of preserve stewardship responsibility is required.
This will be provided by a Chapter Land Stewardship Committee headed
by a Vice Chairman for Land Stewardship. The committee members should
be drawn from a variety of backgrounds to provide the diversity of
knowledge necessary to deal with land ownership problems.

The basic functions of the Chapter Land Stewardship Committee
will be:

1. Insuring the establishment and perpetuation of a Preserve
Stewardship Committee for each preserve within the chapter
area.

2. Receiving and reviewing a copy of the Master Plan for each
of the preserves within the chapter area and forwarding a
copy of the Plan, with comments, to the appropriate Regional
Office.

3. Distribute Annual Status Report forms. Receiving and reviewing
a copy of the Annual Status Report (see p. IV-10) from the
Preserve Stewardship Committee and forwarding a copy to the
appropriate Regional Office on or before the 30th of November
of each year.

4. Monitoring the stewardship practices of each preserve within
the chapter area by periodically visiting preserves to see
that they are being'adequately maintained.

APPENDIX I (continued) Revised: II-4
3/5/76

5. Assisting the Preserve Stewardship Committee and the Preserve
Directors on tasks for which their local resources are inadequate
and providing specialized analysis and advice on matters re-
quiring professional expertise.

6. Providing liason with educational and scientific groups in
order to promote appropriate use of preserves within the
chapter area.

7. Being prepared to react quickly to an emergency and acting
upon its own authority when delay might result in damage
to the preserve.

8. Inform National and Regional Directors of Land Stewardship
of any additions to or changes in Preserve Directors.

9. Distribute complete Preserve Management Manuals to all new
Preserve Directors.

The Regional Directors of Land Stewardship

The chief functions of the Regional Land Steward will be:

1. To advise, encourage, assist and direct chapters and Preserve
Directors through frequent communication and in-person visits
with Chapter Land Stewardship Committee members.

2. Providing the ultimate day-to-day authority for the adminis-
tration of the preserve stewardship program. Only unusually
complex preserve problems should be referred to the National
Director of Land Stewardship.

3. Review Preserve Master Plans and, if approved, forward a copy
with comment to the National Director of Land Stewardship.

4. Monitor the preservation and use of preserves leased by the
Conservancy as well as those areas which have been transferred
out with reverters or other deed restrictions.

5. Review all potential projects evaluating their ecological
merit, defensibility and manageability.

6.- Advise National Director of Land Stewardship of developments
in Regions which are of National significance. Major preserve
stewardship decisions such as changes in personnel, new pro-
grams, large expenditures of monies or other resources should
be brought to the attention of the National Director before
decisions are finalized.

7. Provide a year end report summarizing status of preserve
stewardship in Region, highlighting accomplishments and
problems and attaching copies of the Annual Statue Report
when appropriate.

APPENDIXI (continued) Revised: 11-5
6/25/76

8. Submit a monthly report giving a synopsis of past month's
management activities.

9. FILLING THE FUNCTION OF THE CHAPTER LAND STEWARDSHIP COMM4ITTEE
IN THOSE STATES OR THOSE GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS WHERE NO CHAPTER
EXISTS.

D. The National Director of Land Stewardship

The preserve stewardship staff of the National Office is responsible
for developing preserve stewardship procedures and policy. Involvement
in administration matters and management decisions will be limited to
those matters requiring National Office resources. Specific preserve
stewardship functions of the National Office are:

1. Developing Preserve Stewardship policy and procedures, and
working with other national and regional office staff in the
preparation of the organization's long-range goals.

2. Encouraging and assisting the volunteer membership in the
implementation and continuation of an active preserve stewardship
program.

3. Reporting through the President to the Board of Governors on
the status of the national preserve stewardship operation, and
serving as staff representative to the Board's Science/
Stewardship Committee.

4. Receiving, reviewing and analyzing the preserve Master Plans,
monthly reports, and annual reports submitted by the Regional
Offices.

5. Administering the Preserve Stewardship Endowment.

6. Periodically revising and adding to the Preserve Management
Manual.

7. FILLING THE FUPNCTION OF THE REGIONAL LAND STEWARD IN THOSE
REGIONS WHERE NO DIRECTOR EXISTS.

The importance of the National Office land stewardship staff lies
in its role as a central monitor of the preserve use and management
program for the organization as a whole.

DANIEL A. POOLE IRA N. GABRIELSON
President APPENDIX J Board Chairman
L. R. JAHN ~ AIIIE-~I~rr L. L. WILLIAMSON
Vice-President WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE Secretary

Dedicated to Wildlife Restoration
709 WIRE BUILDING, 1000 VERMONT AVENUE, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005 (202) 347-1774

December 3, 1975

Mr. Gerard J. Hennessey
The Nature Conservancy
/o Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences
Wachapreague, Virginia 23480

Dear Rod:

I was pleased to learn of the Nature Conservancy's proposal
to establish a permanent presence on the Eastern Shore. Your
organization's work has been outstanding in maintaining those
unique small units of habitat associated with the coast of
Virginia.

Precisely how unique the islands are can only be revealed
through studies conducted in future years. The important information
required for maintaining and managing those land and water resources
could be accumulated through the proposed Virginia Coast Reserve
Research Consortium. With adequate information on hand, guide-
lines should be developed for human activities that will permit
actions consistent with the needs of the resource base and avoid
degrading and destructive adverse impacts. Only with appropriate
information available and used can people maintain a rewarding way
of life and avoid potential costly taxpayer resource restoration
costs in the future. There is no question that findings from
scientific research must be applied to develop innovative resource-
human relationships.

We wish you the best -of success in your activities.

Sincerely yours,

Laurence R
Vice-President

LRJ:dt

I :, .1 *7,~ )I i (x1SAPPENDIX J CONTINUED
\71\LA DLLF?
Editorial offices: 534 N. Broadway Milwaukee, Wis. 53202 Phone: 414/273-2486
I iTiO1<{ F Washington offices: 1412 16th St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Phone: 202/483-1550

3 5 December 1975

Mr. Rod flennessey
The Nature Corservancy
hWachapreague, Virginia 23480

Dear Rod:

I'm delighted to hear that The Nature Conservancy has decided to establish
a permanent presence on the Eastern Shore of Virginia. The Conservancy's
barrier island holdings in Virginia represent the last essentially undisturbed,
major section of coastline between Cape Charles and Cape Cod. Tle islands'
value in terms of fish, shellfish and wildlife production are enormous,
and their total human value is beyond calculation. As the eastern seaboard
corridor continues to develop, as the demands for food, clean air, water and
for -recreation increase, and as the intricacies of onie of the most bourntiful
I ecosystems in the world is better understood through the good and comprehen-
sive ~work of your Virginia Coastal Reserve Study, the value of what The
Nature Conservancy has done in setting aside these islands will be recognized
and appreciated by all men.

H-owever, land'oneiership is a responsibility, a stewardship. Miile there are
constructive uses of barrier island opportunities north and south of The
I Nature Conservancy holdings (e.g., NASA on Wallops and the U.S. Fish and
Wlildlife Service on Assateague and Fisherman's Island), I sincerely hope
that The Nature Conservancy will not be forced into pursuing one of these
alternatives -- or any other -- until you and the other administrators
have worked out long-term plans and proposals of your own. This carnnot be
done in two years; perhaps, not in ten. Thus, a continuing presence involving
on-going research and plan development is not only desirable, any other
course would be immoral to the concept of the barrier islands, to the
supporters of The Conservancy, and to the many people who provided the
initial research.

I wish you luck in your search for further furiding. I'll send my own
donation in the New Year.

[ est Regar1-

/Ghol, W. Reiger/
I SrCr Editor

I GRR:bb

UNITED VIRGINIA BANKi 6LAL3OARU NA'tIONAL. UOX 3127, NORFOLK, VIRGINIA 23514

APPENDIX J CONTINUED

United Virginia
CHAIRMAN Bank

December 5, 1975

Mr. Gerard J. Hennessey, Director
The Virginia Coast Reserve Study
The Nature Conservancy
c/o Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences
Wachapreague, Virginia 23480

Dear Rod:

I am pleased to respond to your recent letter concerning the
ultimate management and utilization of the Virginia barrier islands
and adjacent areas now controlled by the Nature Conservancy. In the
first place, the ability to acquire such a remarkably diverse and
undeveloped section of our coast land has been an extraordinary
accomplishment. The second objective must be to utilize its inherent
assets while preserving its unique character. A research consortium
participated in by educational and scientific institutions is an
ideal concept to achieve such benefits.

Scientific observations and descriptions of these islands seventy-
five years ago are remarkably similar to those of today. In the meantime,
however, they have become surrounded by the growing metropolis along
the Eastern Seaboard and both to the north and south once similar terrain
has been destroyed by the human urge to populate the seashore. In con-
sequence, this chain of islands in Virginia, and particularly the lower
two-thirds with the contiguous marshes and adjacent uplands, represent
an extraordinary resource quite adjacent to the largest population
concentration on this continent. More importantly, they represent
an adjacency for educational and research purposes with an incredible
potential.

Institutions of higher learning would undoubtedly respond to the
opportunity. One Dean of the Science Department of a major state
university recently remarked to me that this could be a highly practical
location for environmental biology - so much more in the best interest
of today's student than classical biological instruction. In addition,
the opportunities for education and research in marine biology, ocean-
ography, mariculture, ornithology and various other scientific
specialties are truly unlimited.

~~~~NI United Virginia Bank/Seaboard National

APPENDIX J CONTINUED

Mr. Gerard J. Hennessey -2,December 5, 1975

To my mind it could become a highly similar scientific environment
1 ~ ~comparable to the tropical research station in the Canal Zone operated
by the Smithsonian Institution, but with the far greater practicality
of participation by educational institutions for general instructional
.objectives. The initiation of such a concept would create a protective
shield that could, hopefully, isolate this incredible resource from
potential destruction in the future, and I believe the Nature Conservancy
should remain involved at least in an overview capacity in order to assure
I - ~such an objective. On the other hand, the beneficial public relati'ons
resulting from productive educational and research activities would be
3 ~~convincing evidence of the proper utilization of this area.

While the above comments are basically those of a private citizen
who believes in the wise conservation of unique natural resources, they
I ~ ~are strengthened by my association over a period of time with several
educational institutions, my position as Chairman of the State Commission
of Outdoor Recreation, and my responsibilities in this corporation which
I ~~has on several occasions demonstrated its commitment to such objectives.
I trust the above observations are of value.

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Most sincerely,

M. Lee Payne

I~~~L~h

APPENDIX J CONTINUED

DEPARTMENT OF
GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY Dcme ,17 eehn:(1)5528
MORRILL SCIENCE CENTER D c m e ,17 eehn:(1)5528

Gerard J. Hennessey, Director
The Nature Cons ervency
C/o Virginia Institute of Marine SciencesI
Wachapreague, Virginia 23480

Dear Mr. Hennessey:I

This letter is in response to your request for comment on a plan of the
Nature Conservency to create a unique stewardship of the Southern DelmarvaI
Barrier Islands by developing the Virginia Coast Reserve Research Consortium.
This is to maintain the islands and marshes as a preserve for scientific
studies and educational experiences. We feel that this is unequivocally the
best possible scheme for these islands. Our study has convinced us that the
islands are too mobile and subject to storm erosion (and other damage) to pro-
vide sites for commercial development. More importantly, they have'not yet
been spoiled by development so that they represent one of the few places on
the entire Atlantic seaboard which allow scientists to study natural coastal
processes. We are not qualified as biologists but are sure that you have, or
can get, tremendous support from the biological community for the preservationI
of the habitats which are unique to these islands. From the point of view of
coastal geologists, interested in physical coastal processes, we can state
adamantly that the availability of a protected natural area to study physical
processes and island, marsh, lagoon and inlet development will be a great asset
to the future development of our science. The results of future research will
certainly be of great importance in the Central Atlantic Seaboard areas, asI
well as to coastal research elsewhere in the world. Often, the results of re-
search in one coastal area produces 'economic or other benefits throughout the
world.I

On reflection we do wish to caution you that the nature and level of'research
and other educational use be carefully defined as early as possible. We encourage
you to attract good quality studies without becoming overrun by enthusiastic amateurs
or individuals without serious studies in mind. Fortunately you have access to a
fine group at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science who should be able to- greatly
assist you in this endeavor.I

We hope that we are providing you with sufficiently strong endorsement for
this plan. However, if there is anything else we can do to help the Virginia
Coastal Reserve Research Consortium be realized, do not hesitate to ask.

sincerely,

-Alan W. Niedoroda
Director, Coastal Research Center3
and Assistant Professor
AWN :mlf

Thomas E. RiceI

,. I APPENDIX J CONTINUED
:~*; - United States Department of the Interior
Jji~ ~FISH AND WTILDLIFE SERVICE
National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory
National Museum of Natural History
Washington, D.C. 20560

December 8, 1975

1 .r. G. J. Hennessey, Director
The Virginia Coast Reserve Study
The Nature Conservancy
Wachapreague, Virginia 23480

Dear Rod:

Thank you for your letter telling me of the Nature Conservancy's
decision .with regard to the Virginia Coast Reserve. Perhaps at the
outset I should insert the standard caveat that "the opinions expressed
below are my own and don't necessarily represent those of the Fish
and Whildlife Service". I personally am delighted to hear that the
Conservancy plans to establish a permanent presence on the Eastern
Shore and create a research consortium to foster scientific and edu-
cational use of the Reserve.

I own research interests lead me, of course, to emphasize the
jmportance of the Reservc as habitat for birds. Tle preservation of
these barrier islands in a natural condition is particularly vital to
the maintenance of East Coast populations of certain water-birds like
the Black Skiinm;ier, for elsewhere along the coast many of the former
nesting localities of such birds have been lost or compromised.

WIIith its future as a Natural Area assured, the islands provide
an attractive and often unique site for the research on nesting colonial
birds, such as these studies: reproductive success in large vs. small
colonies, or in undisturbed colonies within the Reserve vs. moderately
disturbed ones elschlere; long-term population trends; interchange of
adults betw.tcen colonies; and monitoring possible effects of widespread
low level environmental contamination, effects which might be overlooked
at other sites iwhich sustain direct but variable human disturbance.

Apart from colonial water-birds, the Reserve will be an excellent
place for investigating the relationship betwccn island area and species
diversity of land birds, hle ecology of marsh birds, and coastal migration
of songbirds, shorebirds, and raptors.

I~~voT:

APPENDIX J CONTINUED

The potential research projects mentioned for birds have
parallels for most other groups. Tle fact that the Conservancy will
continue to asstue the responsibility for the management of the Re-
serve should especially facilitate long range research. It.hile keeping
the interests of Eastern Shore citizens in mind, the Conservancy is
probably in a better position than public agencies to resist political
pressure for development of the islands, which would endanger their
value for research, education, and wildlife conservation.
Sincerely yours,

John S. Iveske
Staff Zoologist, Bird Section

I�

APPENDIX J CONTINUED

OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY
NORFOLK. VIRGINIA 23508

Office of the President

March 26, 1976

Mr. Gerard T. Hennessey, Director
The Virginia Coastal Reserve Study
The Nature Conservancy
c/o Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences
Wachapreaque, Virginia 23480

Dear Mr. Hennessey:

Old Dominion University is extremely interested in the unique opportunities
for environmental education and research presented by The Nature Conservancy's
Coastal Reserve. The preservation of this vitally important national resource
represents one of, the outstanding achievements in the history of natural
resource conservation. Not only does this serve to preserve and protect habitat
essential to the marine ecosystem, but it also provides opportunities for the
investigation of the ecological function of this complex system.

The University has been defined as a regional institution of higher education
dedicated to the development of excellence in those areas which best relate
to the needs of Eastern Virginia and its special geographic features. The
University has a commitment to extend its services throughout the region. In
defining its priorities, the University has established a series of programmatic
themes, the highest of which is the area of environmental and marine studies.
It is Old Dominion University's policy to allocate its resources so as to reflect
its hierarchy of priorities.

Research studies involving undergraduate, master's and doctoral students and
faculty within the Virginia Coastal Reserve are envisioned. Programs would
include faculty and students representing many areas within the School of
Sciences and Health Professions, as well as other schools of the University.
Especially involved would be the departments of Biological Sciences, Chemical
Sciences, Mathematics and Computing Sciences, Physics and Geophysical Sciences
and the Institute of Oceanography among the former; and the Schools of Arts
and Letters, Business Administration, Education, Engineering, and Continuing
Studies among the latter.

Currently the University offers master's programs in most departments including
Biological and Chemical Sciences and Oceanography, as well as the Ph.D. in
Oceanography. The School of Sciences and Health Professions has proposed that
a doctoral degree program in Ecological Studies be initiated by 1980.

APPENDIX J CONTINUED
Dr. Gerard Hennessey3
Page 2
March 12, 1976

The University sees its role as the keystone institution in a Consortium fo r the
Barrier Islands. Its function would be to provide initiative for the creation
of a cooperative body dedicated toward the preservation of this resource, itsI
study and the dissemination of knowledge concerning it. Old Dominion University
would assume the responsibility for administration of the Consortium's research
and education programs and dedicate itself to the development of cooperativeI
efforts.

The heart of the Consortium's programs would be a wetlands laboratory centrally3
located on the Eastern Shore's oceanside. This well-equipped laboratory and
educational facility would house offices, classrooms and research space for staff
engaged in a wide spectrum of Coastal Reserve studies and would include a wet
laboratory. Boat houses, docks and dormitory facilities would complement the mainI
laboratory. Two or more smaller stations would be located on the larger islands
such as Cedar, Paramore, Hog, and Smith.3

Funding for the purchase of an appropriate site and the construction of facilities
would be acquired through grants and contributions. The University would invest
seed money to the extent possible, to support initial efforts of organization and
funding. Equipment available from past projects and not required for other on-
going efforts would be dedicated to these new programs.

The development of the programs described above will provide the Virginia Coastal
Reserve with additional protection as program participants would be able to report
incidents of depredation, and by their presence create an inhibitory effect on
potential desiioilers. The research and education efforts of the proposed programI
cannot help but enhance the appreciation of The Nature Conservancy's motivation
in protecting this vital area.3

The data generated by the Consortium's efforts would help provide the basis for
The Nature Conservancy' s management decisions. The group would also provide The
Conservancy with a readily available source of ecological expertise needed forI
its other projects.

It is obvious that without The Nature-Conservancy' s active support, -this ambitious
program would be impossible. Help in establishing working relations with other
institutions, and acquiring the means for placing this enterprise on a firm finan-
cial basis is essential. The University has had recent success in obtaining
funding for a great diversity of programs but it would require the assistance of I
The Nature Conservancy, with its.experience and record of success, to create the
major educational and research facility which this outstanding natural resource
warrants.I
Sincerely yours,

Jj,..L~/6! ,tzt1
ams L. Bugg, Jr./'
President
JLB/lmr3
cc: Dr. Charles 0. Burgess
Dr. Dale W. Lick3

ADDRESS ONLY THE DIRECTOR,
,APPENDIX J CONTINUED FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
United States Department of the Interior

-7 - - ~ FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
=~'~q~~ ~ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240

In Reply-Refer To:
FWS/SE

Mr. Gerard J. Hennessey, Director
The Virginia Coast Reserve Study
c/o Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences
Wachapreague, Virginia 23480

Dear Rod:

This letter should be considered as a testimonial which details my
impressions, recommendations, and suggestions with regard to the
future fate of the Virginia Coast Reserve and its included islands.

Background: I have attached a copy of my curriculum vitae which should
serve to document my ecological expertise. With special emphasis relating
to the "VCR" I have studied coastal sand island and sand dune habitats
not only along the Atlantic coast, but along the Pacific coast of
California Channel Islands. I am generally familiar with the environ-
mental nature and fragility of these habitats, and am aware of the
extent to which these enviornments have been impacted. I have spent
one entire day on Parramore Island evaluating its forest and dune
habitats, but have not visited other islands in the Reserve.

Findings: Parramore Island (and probably other islands of VCR) is as
close to an undisturbed state as any island along the coasts of the
United States. It contains particularly fine examples of undisturbed
loblolly pine forest and dune systems. Among the small numbers of
insects I sampled, none are endemic and none would seem to qualify as
Endangered or Threatened species. The special attributes of Parramore
Island relate to its undisturbed nature, the inherant individuality
of all islands, and the fact that the ecosystem to which it belongs is
geographically limited.

The narrow coastal marine strip running from Florida north to central
Massachusetts contains a number of elongate barrier sand islands or
peninsulas. Only where these formations are sufficiently wide and
somewhat protected from the inundations associated with periodic

APPENDIX J CONTINUED'

hurricanes do forests or diverse dune communities become established.
These'habitats are limited even along this extensive stretch of coast
and are extremely fragile. Today most of these islands and peninsulas
have been highly altered by man. Perhaps the greater portion have been
densely settled with beach homes with paved roads running their entire
length. Secondarily, barrier strips are under public ownership in
the form of National Seashores and State Beach Parks. These areas,
although some attempt is made to retain a natural aspect, have been
greatly altered. Artificial beach dunes have been formed, paved
roads constructed, and vehicular beach access is encouraged. As a
result of the above only a very few islands which do not have ready
vehicular access remain in a relatively undisturbed state.

Recommendation: Ownership and trusteeship of the VCR remain in the
hands of TNC with principal land-use designation as natural preserve.
No vehicular access to any islands should be permitted. All introduced
domestic animals should be removed, as should any other remnants of
man's hand. The use of VCR as a living laboratory should be restricted
only to those studies, preferably long-term and ecological in nature,
which relate to the VCR's more unique aspects. A small panel could
review and pass judgement upon all proposed study applications.

Opportunities: The following is a brief enumeration of some of the
kinds of research which might be encouraged. All such-studies should
rely upon the VCR as an undisturbed control area and should not result
in any significant reduction of the VCR character and integrity.

A. Monitoring of coastal littoral and marsh areas. Base-line surveys
of exact sites would provide comparative data with homologous habitats
already disturbed by man, and could provide documentation for the
effects of and recovery from any future oil spills or other marine
pollutants.

B. Few climax forests of any sort exist in eastern North America. The
loblolly pine forest on Parramore Island could serve as a standard
of comparison for studies of forest succession and recovery.

C. The presence of a number of islands could serve as the basis of
biogeographic studies.

D. Numerous other possibilities probably exist, but any project not
leading to publication or written reports on resource management
should not be approved.

-APPENDIX J CONTINUED

I am most appreciative for the opportunity to have contributed to this
study, and am willing to assist you in the future as your needs and my
opportunity allows.

Sincerely yours,

Paul A. Opler, Staff Specialist
Office of Endangered Species and
International Activities

Enclosures

APPENDIX K

BIOGRAPHY OF RESEARCHERS

Ray M. Culter was The Nature Conservancy's Staff Supervisor of the Virginia
Coast Reserve Study and served as a member of the Study Advisory Committee. He
received his B.S. in Community Planning in 1968 from the University of Cincinnati,
College of Design, Architecture and Art. His previous work experience includes
Planner at the Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission and Director
of Little Miami, Inc., a non-profit conservation organization which was
successful in preserving'the Little Miami River under both the State (Ohio)
and Federal Scenic River Systems. Culter joined The Nature Conservancy as
Director of Preserve Management .(now called Land Stewardship) in January,
1973. His'primary responsibilities include formulating land stewardship
policy and administering the stewardship program for the organization's
600 plus preserves.

Gerard J. Hennessey directed the Virginia Coast Reserve Study. He received his
B.S. in Wildlife Biology from Rutgers University in 1972 and an M.S. degree
in Wildlife Ecology in 1974 from Yale University. His previous refuge manage-
ment experience includes apprenticeship with the New Jersey Division of
Fish, Game and Shellfisheries, Harvard University's Black Rock Forest, and
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wildlife Refuge System.
Hennessey joined The Nature Conservancy as Director of the Virginia Coast
Reserve Study in September, 1974. His primary responsibilities have included
conducting the Virginia Coast Reserve Study and acting as the Virginia Coast
Reserve's land steward from the Conservancy's office on the Eastern Shore of
Virginia.

John W. Humke has been associated with The Nature Conservancy for the past
ten years. His experience with the organization includes the establishment
of the Conservancy's Mid-Western Regional Office, pioneering the development
of professional staff at the state chapter level, and supervising the organi-
zation's national land conservation program as Director of Operations.
Humke's current responsibilities include the development of natural area
preservation programs in government. Current activities include the develop-
ment of model state nature preserve legislation, the evaluation of land use
regulation as a preservation device, preservation/protection planning for the
Conservancy's State Natural Heritage Program, and the development of a
national system of ecological reserves. Before joining the Conservancy,
Mr. Humke gained field experience with the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources. He was also formerly a consultant to the Illinois Nature
Preserves Commission. Holding a B.S. from the University of Wisconsin -
Stevens Point in Conservation and Biology Humke earned his M.S. at Michigan
State University with studies in Resources Development and Urban Planning.

Robert E.- Jenkins has a background in biology with emphasis in ecology and
evolutionary studies. He has been with The Nature Conservancy since 1970
as Director of natural areas research and management programs. During this time
he has been involved in nearly every aspect of natural area protection. He
has designed and implemented ecological inventories and data managment
systems; initiated and conducted research on the design, management and
restoration of ecosystem preserves; developed endangered species lists;
formulated and directs the State Natural Heritage Programs. Jenkins received
his A.B. in Biology from Rutgers University in 1964; his Ph.D. in Biology

APPENDIX K CONTINUED

from Harvard University in 1970; and his Postdoctoral in Demography and
Environmental Studies from Harvard University in 1969-70.

Susan M. Lukowski wrote the agency and program background for the Stewardship
section of the Virginia Coast Reserve Study. She is currently the Director
of the U.S. - U.S.S.R. State Study at The Nature Conservancy. Before coming
to the Conservancy in 1974, she had worked as a writer, reporter, and consultant
in the U.S. and Europe. Among the publications which she has co-authored
or co-edited are: Strategy and Tactics for Getting a Government Job, Washington
IV, Impeachment Congress, The Preservation of Natural Diversity. She received
her M.A. in International Politics from George Washington University in 1971.