[MASSBIRD] My Comments on Plum Island Habitat Management Plan

[Barbara M Volkle]

Thanks to Suzanne Sullivan for this post.

Barbara Volkle
Northborough, MA
bar...@theworld.com

*

From: Suzanne Sullivan <swam...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2023 00:31:08 -0400
Subject: My Comments on Plum Island Habitat Management Plan


I rushed through them, lacking time, but I hope it motivates others to
comment.
Please feel free to use any part of my comment if you like, feel free
to enhance them etc. Maybe a petition is in order.
Thank you,

*Comment on Habitat Management Plan and Environmental Assessment for
Parker
River and Thacher Island National Wildlife Refuges*


To Whom it May Concern:


Please accept these comments on the above subject matter.


Thank you for finally presenting this plan and the opportunity to
comment.
I consider myself a significant stakeholder on what happens to the
Island
since I have been going to Plum Island/Parker River Wildlife Refuge
since I
was a child. I know the Refuge and adjacent Sandy Point State Park like
the
back of my hand. I have seen many changes over the last 50 years and I
can
see the effects climate change and sea level rise has had on both the
flora
and fauna. I have seen successful and failed actions by Refuge
Management
over the years with the latter unfortunately outweighing the prior.


The management of Piping Plovers and Least Terns has been run well and
has
been fairly successful. However, the management of other bird species
and
their habitat both breeding and migrating has fallen short.


I=E2=80=99d like to remind Refuge Management when the proposal to
=E2=80=9C=
restore=E2=80=9D the
main pannes and surrounding salt marsh was brought forward, the birding
community advocated against plugging the marsh to hold more water in the
pannes and the newly =E2=80=9Crestored=E2=80=9D areas. Unfortunately
Refuge=
Management did
not heed the warnings and went forward with their plans. Eventually
these
pannes went from packed full of ducks, and shorebirds to hardly any
birds.
Instead, a film of algae replaced the birds and covered the habitat.
This
transformation from shallow to deep marsh habitat seemed to have a
profound
effect on nesting sparrows too, both Salt Marsh and Seaside as both
numbers
have significantly declined. I noticed a decline in sparrows after 2 - 3
straight years of continual =E2=80=9Cstudy=E2=80=9D during the delicate
bre=
eding season. I
believe this may have had a profound impact on these breeders.


In just a short period of time since the plugs were recently removed,
this
area has once again become full of shorebirds and ducks. I=E2=80=99m
sure a=
s these
marshes restore back from deep to shallow, as they once were, sparrows
will
also return as the habitat will be more conducive for nesting.


Refuge Management indicates =E2=80=9Crestoration=E2=80=9D of salt marsh
fro=
m the fresh
water impoundments for these two species is so important and justified
that
it must come at the cost of destroying freshwater habitat and the many
species that depend on them. What sense does that make? If Management is
sincere and really wants to restore salt marsh habitat for sparrows the
area around the main pannes, all along the refuge road and across the
river
towards Rough Meadows is where the restoration should occur. The Plum
Bush
Marsh to the end of Stackyard Road etc are all areas being used already
by
these sparrows which could be more enhanced to reach management goals
*with=
out
destroying any freshwater habitats**.* Although the study of these birds
means continued impacts during the breeding season of these super
sensitive
species, restoration of populations will not occur, however, continued
decline will.


Shorebirds have suffered some of the highest population declines across
the
globe. The Northeast is no different and has seen significant declines,
some data is showing some of the worst declines. Although the reasons
are
ten fold, one of the biggest problems within our area is the lack of
safe
places to feed, to refuel, to roost, preen. Plum Island, especially the
refuge ( emphasis added) is a vital stop over and the pools are of the
utmost importance to their survival. Because of sea level rise, when the
high tides are extra high or when there are king tides, these birds
literally have no where to roost or feed. These managed fresh water
pools
offer a place to feed, to roost and to refuel especially during these
tide
events. Several times this year the Merrimac River flats have not been
exposed during low tides, removing that area as a vital feeding spot.
Without the impoundments these shorebirds would have had even less
options
if none at all in this area. These are signs of things to come. Manage
has
a responsibility to continue to provide these vital areas not destroy
them.
There are constant never-ending human impacts on all the beaches across
Massachusetts. People, dogs, kites, drones, raking beaches etc etc
eliminate them from feeding and roosting areas. There is a minute amount
of
areas like the ones that exist on the Refuge. The area over-all is very
small but hugely significant. To indicate that taking these dikes down
destroys the habitat for migrating shorebirds, nesting endangered and
threatened species, and 100=E2=80=99s of thousands of roosting swallows
is =
not only
ill advised it flies in the face of logic, never mind sound science. It
does however, ultimately, when completed, leave the refuge with less to
manage. And maybe that is why this plan is being proposed. This plan to
destroy these freshwater habitats has been proposed for years and the
public has pushed back but still it comes forward.


Bottom line, this plan falls drastically short and should be promoting
more
ways to create diverse habitats not destroy the ones that exist.
Unfortunately, this plan is decades behind where it should be in
addressing
the magnitude of the problem regarding the alarming decline of
biodiversity=
.
That being said, there are a few glimmers of hope and forward thinking.
I
do like the idea of burns as described in the plan. Maybe goats and
sheep
should be considered also to create habitat for the grassland species
and
pollinators that once thrived on the Refuge.


I know there are a lot of people like me that have come to know and
love
the refuge over our lifetimes. I also know we will do whatever we
possibly
can to protect this vital habitat for the birds, animals and pollinators
who so desperately need it. Management should expect significant push
back,
if it continues to move forward with a plan the public stakeholders do not
support. A plan that falls short of Management=E2=80=99s charge by
destroying
biodiversity and fresh water habitat and does not adequately meet the
demands of the times.


Respectfully,

Suzanne M. Sullivan



Suzanne M. Sullivan
Wilmington, MA
swam...@gmail.com
Be the Voice of the River
http://www.ipswichriver.org

[Rick Nok]

Thanks Suzanne for your cogent and thoughtful comments on the refuge’s disastrous plans to destroy these critically important impoundments.

Your history detailing the refuge’s gross mismanagement of the salt pans and surrounding marsh is spot on. They basically made the salt pans unusable for birds, an avian desert, for many many years by plugging up draining creeks and keeping the water levels in the pans permanently high and stagnant. It was a disaster. Finally, they did a complete 180 and reopened the salt pans to tidal filling and draining and now it is once again full of shorebirds, ducks, egrets, and Saltmarsh Sparrows in the surrounding marsh.

Now, in their infinite lack of wisdom and sound science, they want to destroy these other vital area, the impoundments, for shorebirds, along with the other species we’ve all mentioned, for no good reason at all. It too, will be a disaster for the refuge’s migratory and breeding birds.

I can’t imagine the refuge without the North Pool, Forward Pool, and Stage Island Pool, and the thousands and thousands of birds that use these sites each year becoming only a memory.

Rick Heil
Peabody, Ma
rshei...@gmail.com

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 27, 2023, at 4:51 AM, Barbara M Volkle <bar...@theworld.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks to Suzanne Sullivan for this post.