U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Petit Manan National

Wildlife Refuge Complex

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

and Environmental Impact Statement

Executive Summary

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Cover Photos: Cross Island, USFWS

Harbor seal, USFWS

Atlantic puffin, USFWS

Roseate tern, Gil Lopez-Espina

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

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

continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the 94-million acre

National Wildlife Refuge system comprised of more than 535 national wildlife refuges

and thousands of waterfowl production areas. It also operates 65 national fish

hatcheries and 78 ecological services field stations. The agency enforces Federal

wildlife laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant

fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, administers the

Endangered Species Act, and helps foreign governments with their conservation

efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid Program which distributes hundreds of

millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state wildlife

agencies.

Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long term guidance for management

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

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

program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget

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

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

increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land

acquisition.

This goose, designed by J.N. “Ding”

Darling, has become a symbol of the

National Wildlife Refuge System.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Northeast Regional Office

300 Westgate Center Drive

Hadley, MA 01035

April 2004

Petit Manan National

Wildlife Refuge Complex

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

and Environmental Impact Statement

Executive Summary

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

Lead agency: U.S. Department of the Interior,

Fish and Wildlife Service

Responsible official: Marvin Moriarty, Regional Director, Region 5

For further information: Nancy McGarigal, Planning Team Leader

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 5

300 Westgate Center Drive

Hadley, MA 01035

(413) 253–8562; northeastplanning@fws.gov

The Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for

Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex fully compares four management

alternatives. Its eight appendixes provide additional information supporting our analysis.

A brief overview of each alternative follows.

Refuge expansion of 1,034 acres and continued current management. This is the “no

action” alternative required by regulations under the National Environmental Policy Act

of 1969. Although it would expand Petit Manan Refuge by 1,034 acres beyond the

current approved boundary, selecting this alternative would otherwise maintain the

status quo in refuge management actions over the next 15 years. Thus, it provides a

baseline for comparing or contrasting the three “action” alternatives.

Refuge expansion of 2,467 acres and notably expanded management and recreation.

Selecting this alternative would expand the Petit Manan refuge by 2,314 acres beyond

the current approved boundary on 87 nationally significant seabird, wading bird, or bald

eagle coastal nesting islands and 153 acres of wetlands on the mainland. It would add

six new seabird restoration projects to our present six, and intensify the focus of our

biological programs on birds of high conservation priority in the Gulf of Maine. It

would increase opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation, especially in our

environmental education and interpretation programs, build new trails on the

Gouldsboro Bay, Sawyers Marsh, and Corea Heath divisions, and open the Petit Manan

Point division for deer hunting. And, it would recommend that 13 Refuge Complex

islands in 8 wilderness study areas be included in the National Wilderness Preservation

System. Refuge staffing and budgets would increase commensurately. We recommend

this alternative for approval.

Refuge expansion of 6,463 acres and greatly expanded management and recreation.

Selecting this alternative would expand the Petit Manan refuge by 6,463 acres beyond

the current approved boundary, adding 6,310 acres on all or parts of 151 seabird or bald

eagle nesting islands and 153 acres of wetlands on the mainland. Its wilderness proposal

mirrors the proposal in alternative B. It would create 12 new seabird restoration

projects, and allow trapping under refuge regulations on three mainland divisions and

Bois Bubert and Cross islands. New trails would be developed on refuge mainland

divisions, the same as alternative B. This alternative would also require the greatest

budget and staffing increases.

No refuge expansion beyond the current approved boundary and reduced management with minimal human intrusion. This alternative adopts a custodial or low

intervention approach to management. Selecting it would neither expand a refuge nor

recommend wilderness designation. It would restore only minimal seabird habitat, focus

our public use, environmental education and interpretation on offsite programs, and

close all refuge islands to public access. Except for our emergency intervention to avert

or mitigate catastrophic events, it would leave refuge habitats and species to the effects

of environmental processes.

Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement

The Gulf of Maine

Abstract

Alternative A

Current Management

Alternative B

Preferred Alternative

Alternative C

Alternative D
Executive Summary

Table of Contents

Introduction .................................................................................... ES-1

Proposed Action ............................................................................. ES-1

Purpose and Need for Action ......................................................... ES-1

Brief Histories and Purposes of the Refuges .................................. ES-2

Refuge Complex Vision and Goals................................................. ES-4

Alternatives .................................................................................... ES-5

Alternative A – Current Management ..................................... ES-5

Alternative B – Service’s Preferrred Alternative ..................... ES-6

Alternative C .......................................................................... ES-7

Alternative D .......................................................................... ES-8

Actions Common to All Alternatives ............................................... ES-20

Affected Environment ..................................................................... ES-21

Environmental Consequences........................................................ ES-25

Table 1-1 Summary of the effects of management alternatives

on Refuge Complex resources ....................................................... ES-33

Table 1-2 Land acquisition summary by alternative ........................ ES-41

Map 1-1 Gulf of Maine Watershed .................................................. ES-3

Map 1-2 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Index map ............. ES-9

Map 1-3 Kittery ............................................................................... ES-10

Map 1-4 Saco Bay .......................................................................... ES-11

Map 1-5 Casco Bay ........................................................................ ES-12

Map 1-6 Muscongus Bay ................................................................ ES-13

Map 1-7 Outer Penobscot Bay ....................................................... ES-14

Map 1-8 Inner Penobscot Bay ........................................................ ES-15

Map 1-9 Jericho Bay ...................................................................... ES-16

Map 1-10 Frenchmans Bay ............................................................ ES-17

Map 1-11 Petit Manan .................................................................... ES-18

Map 1-12 Cobscook Bay ................................................................ ES-19

Page

Tables

Maps

Purpose and Need for Action

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 ES-1

As part of its congressional mandate, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

conserves habitat and protects fish, wildlife, and plants on the more than

540 refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System, in cooperation with

the American public, States, and our other partners in conservation. On the

public lands in that System, “Wildlife Comes First.”

The Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Refuge Complex)

comprises five refuges on the coast of Maine between the borders of New

Hampshire and New Brunswick. The habitats and species of its refuges

are well known for their diversity and for their importance to the quality

of water, air, and life in the Gulf of Maine Rivers ecosystem and the Gulf of

Maine watershed.

We have prepared a draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (draft CCP/EIS) that describes four alternatives

for managing the Refuge Complex for the next 15 years. Each alternative

proposes varying strategies to achieve important objectives in managing

habitat, species, and public use; each, except alternative D, also proposes

to expand the boundaries of the Refuge Complex beyond the current

approved boundary by a number of acres that is determined in part by the

environmental impacts of implementing its strategies and achieving its

objectives. This document summarizes that draft CCP/EIS.

We propose to implement a CCP for the Refuge Complex that best achieves

its vision and goals; best addresses its significant management issues; best

conforms to its conservation mandates; best applies sound science in

managing fish and wildlife; and, best contributes to the mission of the

System.

We examined a wide range of alternatives for managing the Refuge

Complex. From among them, we fully developed four. We then selected as

our preferred alternative the one that, in our professional judgment, would

best accomplish all of the actions above.

Alternative B: Refuge expansion of 2,467 acres and notably increased habitat

management and opportunities for compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation.

Our purpose in developing a CCP by fully involving others is vital to our

future success. It allows interested individuals, organizations, and elected

officials to engage in resolving management issues and public concerns.

The CCP clearly explains the reasons for our management actions, and

clearly links them to desired future conditions for refuge habitat, wildlife,

visitor services, staffing, and facilities. It ensures that our management of

each refuge conforms to the mandates of the System, and that wildlifedependent recreational uses are compatible with the purposes for which

each refuge was established. Finally, it provides long-term direction and

continuity in developing the Refuge Complex and its annual budgets.

Introduction

Proposed Action

Purpose and Need

for Action

Preferred Alternative
Executive Summary

ES-2 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Our need to develop a CCP for the Refuge Complex is manifold. New

ecosystem and species plans bear directly on management of the Refuge

Complex. Its island holdings have more than tripled over the last 15 years;

its mainland holdings also have increased. Outpacing those increases, the

already intense pressure for more public access and wildlife-dependent

recreation continues to grow. In response, we increased our staffing and

opened a second office. We also want to evaluate the criteria for our

proposed new Headquarters and Coastal Education Center. And finally, we

need the Land Protection Plan that accompanies this CCP to guide us in

protecting land that conserves nationally significant coastal habitats and

Federal trust species.

The location of the Refuge Complex, in several of the most densely

settled, coastal counties of Maine, has exposed it to numerous development threats and public use pressures over the years. From 1972 through

1980, each of its refuges was established by the methods and for the

purposes shown below.1

In recent years, our expenditures in acquiring land for the Refuge Complex have averaged $1 million per year. We have now acquired all but

467 acres of the land within our approved acquisition boundaries.

Appendix A, “Land Protection Plan,” (LPP) describes that land and the

land we propose to acquire in expanding the Refuge Complex.

This refuge is 65 acres, acquired in a transfer at no cost from the U.S.

Navy. It was established in 1972 for “...particular value in carrying out

the national migratory bird management program....” [An Act Authorizing

the Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife or Other Purposes

(16 U.S.C. 667b–667d)]

This refuge is 12 acres, acquired in a transfer at no cost from the U.S. Coast

Guard. It was established in 1973 for “...particular value in carrying out

the national migratory bird management program....” [An Act Authorizing

the Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife or Other Purposes (16

U.S.C.667b–667b)]

This refuge is 10 acres, acquired in transfer from the U.S. Coast Guard. It

was established in 1973 for “...particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program....” [An Act Authorizing the

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife or Other Purposes (16

U.S.C.667b–667d)]

Brief Histories and

Purposes of the

Refuges

Seal Island National

Wildlife Refuge

Franklin Island National

Wildlife Refuge

Pond Island National

Wildlife Refuge

1

 The acreage shown for each refuge is the number of acres above the mean high water

mark, taken from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), rounded to the nearest whole

number.
Brief Histories and Purposes of the Refuges

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 ES-3
Executive Summary

ES-4 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

This refuge now comprises 5,771 acres in 33 islands and 3 mainland

divisions. It was originally established in 1974 “...for use as an inviolate

sanctuary, or any other management purposes, for migratory birds....”

[Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715d)], whereas the islands

and mainland parcels we acquired after 1974 were also established under

one or more of the following acts, as well.

“...suitable for (1) incidental fish- and wildlife-oriented recreational

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

of endangered species or threatened species....” [Refuge Recreation Act

(16 U.S.C. 460k–l)]

“...particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program....” [An Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Real

Property for Wildlife or Other Purposes (16 U.S.C. 667b–667d)]

“...the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the

public benefits they provide and to help fulfill international obligations

contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions....” [Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901(b); 100 Stat.

3583)].

This six-island refuge is 1,703 acres, and was established in 1980 “...for

use as an inviolate sanctuary, or other management purposes, for migratory birds” [Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715d)].

“With the help of our conservation partners, at the Petit Manan National

Wildlife Refuge Complex we will apply sound, scientific principles and adaptive

management strategies to sustain the long-term health and integrity of coastal

Maine habitats; expand community outreach and environmental education and

interpretation programs; and, stimulate visitors to embrace stewardship of

natural resources.

We envision the future Refuge Complex epitomizing the mission of the National

Wildlife Refuge System; conserving in perpetuity an incredibly rich tapestry of

coastal islands, intertidal estuaries, freshwater wetlands, maritime forests and

open fields; and, enabling nesting and migrating seabirds, and other wildlife of

conservation concern in the Gulf of Maine, to thrive here.”

These are intentionally broad statements of our purposes and the focus of

our management actions. We have not ranked them in any sequence;

however, the biological goals will take precedence in decisions about

refuge management.

Goal 1: Perpetuate the biological diversity and integrity of upland communities on Refuge Complex mainland properties to sustain high quality

habitat for migratory birds.

Petit Manan National

Wildlife Refuge

Cross Island National

Wildlife Refuge

Refuge Complex

Vision and Goals

Vision

Goals
Alternatives

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 ES-5

Goal 2: Maintain high quality wetland communities on Refuge Complex

mainland properties, primarily to benefit migratory birds of high conservation priority, while also supporting other native, wetland-dependent

species of concern.

Goal 3: Perpetuate the biological diversity and integrity of upland communities on Refuge Complex islands to sustain high quality habitat for

nesting bald eagles and migratory songbirds and raptors and protect rare

plant sites.

Goal 4: Protect the high quality wetland communities on Refuge Complex

islands to benefit nesting and migrating shorebirds and waterfowl.

Goal 5: Protect and restore nesting seabird populations on Refuge Complex islands to contribute to regional and international seabird conservation goals.

Goal 6: Promote the public enjoyment and stewardship of coastal Maine

wildlife and their habitats by providing priority, wildlife-dependent recreational and educational opportunities.

Goal 7: Protect the integrity of coastal Maine wildlife and habitats

through an active land acquisition and protection program.

Goal 8: Communicate and collaborate with local communities, Federal,

State, local and Tribal representatives and other organizations throughout

coastal Maine to advance the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge

System.

This is the “no action” alternative required by the Council on Environmental Quality regulations under the National Environmental Policy Act

of 1969. Although it would expand Petit Manan Refuge by 1,034 acres, it

otherwise extends our current management activities over the next 15

years, and thus, it serves as the baseline for comparing or contrasting the

three action alternatives. Our funding and staffing would not increase

appreciably over those of fiscal years 2002–2003.

We would continue to acquire, as they become available from willing

sellers, 467 acres within our current land acquisition boundaries. In addition, we would establish as a fourth mainland division the 400 acres of

Corea Heath now awaiting transfer at no cost from the U.S. Navy. We

would also add 881 acres of nationally significant seabird nesting habitat

on 30 islands to our present 42 refuge islands, and add 153 acres of important wetland habitat on the mainland. (See Table 1-2.)

Our biological program would continue to prioritize our six intensively

managed seabird conservation projects on refuge islands: managing

vegetation, restoring seabird habitat, controlling seabird predators and

public use and access, and collecting detailed biological information. On

the Petit Manan Point mainland division, we would continue to maintain

Alternatives

Alternative A.

Current Management
Executive Summary

ES-6 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

70 acres of open field and 3 freshwater impoundments, and would continue our baseline vegetation and wildlife inventories as staffing and

funding allow.

Our priority public use programs also would not change. Hunting, fishing,

wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and

interpretation were established as priorities on refuges by the National

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Our annual hunt

program would continue to offer waterfowl hunting on 22 islands, deer

hunting on Bois Bubert Island, and small game, big game, and waterfowl

hunting on the Sawyers Marsh and Gouldsboro Bay mainland divisions.

We would maintain the two trails on the Petit Manan Point division, but

would develop no new infrastructure to support priority public uses.

This, our preferred alternative, proposes the actions that we believe will

most successfully achieve the goals of the Refuge Complex as well as the

purposes of its refuges, and will most effectively address its significant

issues. Our levels of funding and staffing would increase commensurately

to support its proposed expansions.

We would pursue Service land acquisition as in alternative A; but, we

would increase our protection to 87 nationally significant seabird and bald

eagle nesting islands, comprising 2,314 acres not permanently protected

(see Table 1-2). According to our Gulf of Maine Program staff and the

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), those

87 islands are the highest priority seabird and bald eagle nesting islands in

Maine that still need long-term protection. Protecting them would achieve

significant gains in the regional recovery of those species. We plan to

acquire those islands during the next 15 years at a rate of about six islands

per year, the median rate at which we acquired refuge islands during the

past decade.

Early in the planning process, we reviewed all refuge land for its suitability for designation as wilderness. We would pursue formal wilderness

designation of 3,125 acres on 13 islands in 8 wilderness study areas

(WSAs) in the Refuge Complex: Cross Is., 1,654 acres; Inner Double

Head Shot Is., 8 acres; Mink Is., 11 acres; Old Man Is., 6 acres; Outer

Double Head Shot Is., 14 acres; Scotch Is., 10 acres; Halifax Is., 75 acres;

Inner Sand Is., 18 acres; Bois Bubert Is., 1,190 acres; John’s Is., 43 acres;

Outer White Is., 16 acres; Outer Heron Is., 66 acres; and Little Marshall

Is., 14 acres. These WSAs would make a unique geographical and ecological contribution to the National Wilderness Preservation System.

Among our biological programs, protecting seabirds and restoring their

habitat would continue as our highest priorities, and we would expand this

effort by creating six new project areas during the 15-year planning

Alternative B.

Preferred Alternative
Alternatives

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 ES-7

horizon. Our habitat management, inventory, and monitoring would

intensify our focus on benefiting migratory land birds, waterfowl, and

shorebirds identified as conservation priorities in national or regional

plans.

Our priority public use programs also would notably expand, especially in

environmental education and interpretation. We would develop new

infrastructure, including interpretive kiosks, and new trails and parking

areas at the Gouldsboro Bay, Sawyers Marsh, and Corea Heath divisions.

We would also place interpreters on commercial wildlife viewing tour

boats and modify our seasonal, protective closures of some seabird nesting

islands to allow public access in August. Once we have identified prospective sites, we would further develop our proposal for a new Headquarters

and Coastal Education Center in a separate environmental analysis. Hunting opportunities would expand to include hunting white-tailed deer on the

Petit Manan Point division.

Alternative B would enhance our outreach to refuge communities and our

partnerships with other Service programs, MDIFW, numerous conservation organizations, research and educational institutions, and the Friends

of Maine Seabird Islands. We would integrate all of those relationships in

successfully accomplishing our goals and objectives.

This alternative builds on alternative B. It would greatly expand our

biological, public use, and land protection programs, and would require

commensurate increases in funding and staffing.

Alternative C proposes the greatest expansion of the Refuge Complex. We

would pursue Service acquisition from willing sellers of all or parts of 151

nationally significant seabird and bald eagle nesting islands, or approximately 6,310 acres not permanently protected. This proposal would

protect all of the nesting islands in Maine that have been determined

nationally significant, and would greatly advance the regional recovery of

seabirds and bald eagles. In addition to the mainland parcels identified in

alternative B, we would pursue acquisition of mainland tracts identified

within North American Waterfowl Conservation Joint Venture Focus

Areas. Our priority would be to acquire tracts with high quality migratory

waterfowl habitat near existing refuge lands. Also similar to alternative B,

we would pursue the wilderness designation of 3,125 acres on the 13 islands in our 8 WSAs.

We would start 12 new seabird habitat restoration projects during the next

15 years. Our biological inventory and monitoring programs would greatly

increase in complexity and duration, but would remain focused on seabirds, migratory land birds, waterfowl, and shorebirds identified as conservation priorities in national and regional plans.

Alternative C.
Executive Summary

ES-8 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

In addition to the priority public use activities in alternative B, we would

pursue a partnership with State and Federal Highways Divisions to install

interpretive panels at rest stops and visitor facilities along major travel ways.

On some of our seabird project areas, we would install a live-feed video

camera for educational broadcasts on our website. We would allow the

trapping of furbearers, under State and Refuge regulations, on the

Gouldsboro Bay, Sawyers Marsh, and Petit Manan mainland divisions, on

Cross and Bois Bubert Islands. On the mainland, trapping would not start

before December, to protect the thousands of migrating waterfowl that

congregate on refuge wetlands in the fall.

This alternative proposes a custodial or low-intervention approach to

administering the Refuge Complex and managing its resources. It minimizes human intrusion or intervention in ongoing ecological processes,

except when necessary to protect threatened or endangered species, avoid

catastrophic loss of seabird populations on refuge lands, control invasive

and exotic species, or enforce regulations. Funding and staffing would

remain at their present levels, with the exception of added law enforcement capabilities.

We would continue to acquire, as they become available from willing

sellers, the 467 acres within our currently approved boundary. We would

also continue to pursue the no-cost transfer from the U.S. Navy of the 400

acre Corea Heath, which also lies within our currently approved boundary.

We would neither expand the currently approved Refuge Complex boundary, nor pursue formal wilderness designations. However, we would

continue to support our conservation partners as they acquire land to

protect important coastal habitat in Maine.

We would limit our activities at individual seabird conservation projects to

a minimum maintenance level. We would no longer manage vegetation by

mowing, sheep grazing, or prescribed burning, and would curtail our

monitoring of seabird nesting success to an annual census of nesting pairs.

We would maintain the priority public use infrastructure now in place on

the Petit Manan Point division, but would keep the other mainland divisions undeveloped to minimize the potential for human-induced impacts.

Instead, we would focus our priority public use on off-site environmental

education and interpretation in schools or at our proposed Coastal Education Center. Hunting would not be allowed on refuge lands, and we would

close all refuge islands year-round to public use, except for tours organized by our staff or led by a partner operating under a special use permit.

Alternative D.
Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 ES-9

[

[

Portsmouth

Portland

Brunswick

Rockland

Camden

Belfast

Ellsworth

Bar

Harbor

Petit Manan NWR Complex

Milbridge Office

Petit Manan NWR Complex

Rockport Office

Ma

Matinicus Rock

Seal Island

Petit Manan

Island

Metinic

Island

Isles of Shoals

Monhegan Island

Isle au Haut

Swans Island

Vinalhaven

Matinicus

Island

Rachel

Carson

National Wildlife Refuge

Map 1-3

Map 1-4

Map 1-5

Map 1-6 Map 1-7

Map 1-8

Map 1-9

Map 1-10

Map 1-11

Casco Bay

Penobscot Bay

Muscongus

Bay

Jericho Bay

Frenchmans

Bay

Pleasant

Bay

Saco Bay

Lincoln

Augusta

Knox

Kennebec

Sagadahoc

Androscoggin

Lewiston - Auburn

Cumberland Sebago Lake

York

Oxford Waldo

Hancock Washington

71°0'0"W

70°0'0"W

70°0'0"W

69°0'0"W

69°0'0"W

68°0'0"W

68°0'0"W

43°0'0"N 44°0'0"N71°0'0"W

43°0'0"N

PETIT MANAN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Map Projection: North_American_1927_UTM_Zone_19NGraticule Units: degrees, minutes, seconds

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 5

Miles

1:1,000,000 . 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 10

Kilometers

Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Other National Wildlife Refuges

Maine Counties

Gulf of Maine

New

York

Qu

Verm

Mass

Report Map OutlinesMajor Roads

Map 1-2
ES-10 

Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex Piscataqua River York River

Portsmouth Harbor

Brave Boat

Harbor

York Harbor

Sta

Smuttynose I

Appledore I

Trott I Cap

Boon Island

Duck I

Lunging I

Star I

The Nubble

White I

Rachel Carson

National Wildlife Refuge

York

Ogunquit

Kittery

Portsmouth

70°45'0"W

70°45'0"W

70°30'0"W

70°30'0"W

70°1

43°0'0"N

43°15'0"N

Map Projection: North_American_1927_UTM_Zone_19NGraticule Units: degrees, minutes, seconds

PETIT MANAN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEME

Map 1-3 Kittery

Land Protection LegendBase Map LegendNational Land Cover Database

Petit Manan National WildlifeRefuge ComplexPetit Manan National Wildlife RefugeApproved for AcquisitionNationally Significant Islands*Permanently Protected by OthersNationally Significant Islands*Not Permanently ProtectedNationally Significant Bald EagleNesting Sites*Not Permanently ProtectedOther National Wildlife Refuges

* 'Nationally significant' is defined by criteria developed in partnership with Gulf of Maine Program,Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife andconservation partners. Specific criteria used todetermine national significance identified in Chapter 1of the CCP/EIS.

ResidentialCommercial, Industrial or TransportationBare Rock or Barren LandForestedGrasslandWetland

Primary RoadsSecondary RoadsTown LinesFresh Water

Data sources:National Land Cover Database from the US EPADigital Elevation Model from USGS NED dataRoads from USGS 1:100,000 road dataTown lines adaped from Maine Office of GIS dataAll National Wildlife Refuge boundaries from USFWSBathymetry from MassGISMap produced by USFWS R5Carto 1/20/2004

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2.5

Kilometers

0 5 10 15 20 2.5

Miles

1:185,000 
Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 ES-11

Nonesuch Riv er

Saco River

Scarborough River

Spurwi

Saco Bay

Kennebunk River

Goosefair Bay

Stage I

R

Eagle I

Stratton I

Beach I

Wood I

Timber I

Trott I Cape I

Bluff I

Stage I

Rachel Carson

National Wildlife Refuge

Rachel Carson

National Wildlife Refuge

Scarborough

Old

Orchard

Beach

Saco

Biddeford

Kennebunkport Kennebunk

Wells

Ogunquit

70°45'0"W

70°30'0"W

70°30'0"W

70°15'0"W

43°15'0"N 43°30'0"N70°45'0"W

43°15'0"N

Map Projection: North_American_1927_UTM_Zone_19NGraticule Units: degrees, minutes, seconds

PETIT MANAN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEME

Map 1-4 Saco Bay

Land Protection LegendBase Map LegendNational Land Cover Database

Petit Manan National WildlifeRefuge ComplexPetit Manan National Wildlife RefugeApproved for AcquisitionNationally Significant Islands*Permanently Protected by OthersNationally Significant Islands*Not Permanently ProtectedNationally Significant Bald EagleNesting Sites*Not Permanently ProtectedOther National Wildlife Refuges

* 'Nationally significant' is defined by criteria developed in partnership with Gulf of Maine Program,Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife andconservation partners. Specific criteria used todetermine national significance identified in Chapter 1of the CCP/EIS.

ResidentialCommercial, Industrial or TransportationBare Rock or Barren LandForestedGrasslandWetland

Primary RoadsSecondary RoadsTown LinesFresh Water

Data sources:National Land Cover Database from the US EPADigital Elevation Model from USGS NED dataRoads from USGS 1:100,000 road dataTown lines adaped from Maine Office of GIS dataAll National Wildlife Refuge boundaries from USFWSBathymetry from MassGISMap produced by USFWS R5Carto 1/20/2004

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2.5

Kilometers

0 5 10 15 20 2.5

Miles

1:185,000 
ES-12 

Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Cousin's River

Harraseeket River

New Meadows River

Royal River

Back

Cove

Luckse Sound

Fore River

h Riv er

Spurwink River

Maquoit Bay

Middle Bay

Broad Sound

Small Point Harbor

Quahog Bay

Merriconeag Sound

Casco Bay 

Hope Cow I I Whaleboat I

White's I

Elm Is

The

Bangs I

Orrs Island

Seal I

Fuller's Rock

Her

East

Mark I

White Bull

Ragged I

Wood I

Jenny I

Harbor I

Flag I

Pond I

Yarmouth I

Brown Cow

Sebascondegan

Islan

W

d

illiams I Littlejohn I

Moshier I

Lane's I Crab I

Jaquish I

Halfway Rock

French's I

Birch I

Bustin's I Cousin's I

Inner Green I

Vaill I

Great

Island

Chebeague Clapboard I

Sturdivant I

Diamond I

Mackworth I

Great

Basket I

Long Island

Cliff Island Stave I Haskell I

Jewell I Island Peaks

Brothers

Outer Green I

Brown Cow

West

Bailey Island

Richmond I

Ram I

Goose Is

Ram I

Ministerial I Upper Flag I

Bates I

Ram I

Cushing I

Brunswick

Phippsbu

Harpswell

Freeport

Yarmouth

Cumberland

Falmouth

Portland

South

Portland

Cape

Elizabeth

70°15'0"W

70°15'0"W

70°0'0"W

70°0'0"W

43°30'0"N 6943°45'0"N

Map Projection: North_American_1927_UTM_Zone_19NGraticule Units: degrees, minutes, seconds

PETIT MANAN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEME

Map 1-5 Casco Bay

Land Protection LegendBase Map LegendNational Land Cover Database

Petit Manan National WildlifeRefuge ComplexPetit Manan National Wildlife RefugeApproved for AcquisitionNationally Significant Islands*Permanently Protected by OthersNationally Significant Islands*Not Permanently ProtectedNationally Significant Bald EagleNesting Sites*Not Permanently ProtectedOther National Wildlife Refuges

* 'Nationally significant' is defined by criteria developed in partnership with Gulf of Maine Program,Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife andconservation partners. Specific criteria used todetermine national significance identified in Chapter 1of the CCP/EIS.

ResidentialCommercial, Industrial or TransportationBare Rock or Barren LandForestedGrasslandWetland

Primary RoadsSecondary RoadsTown LinesFresh Water

Data sources:National Land Cover Database from the US EPADigital Elevation Model from USGS NED dataRoads from USGS 1:100,000 road dataTown lines adaped from Maine Office of GIS dataAll National Wildlife Refuge boundaries from USFWSBathymetry from MassGISMap produced by USFWS R5Carto 1/20/2004

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2.5

Kilometers

0 5 10 15 20 2.5

Miles

1:185,000
Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 ES-13

Kennebec River

Damariscotta Rive r

S

Muscongus Bay

Damariscotta R iver

Johns Bay

Johns River

Sheepscot River

Montsweag Bay

Linekin Bay

Booth Bay Sheepscot Bay

Medomak River

Davis I

Thompson I

Barters Island

Pumpkin I

Outer Heron I

White Is

Franklin I

Thief I

Allen I Hooper I

Shark I Burnt I

Shag Ledges

Ross I

Wreck I

Marsh I

McGee I

Otter I

Cranberry I

Gay I

Caldwell I

Hart I

Friendship

Long I

Cow I

Louds I

Hog I

Western Egg Rock

Eastern Egg Rock

Bremen Long I

Thrumcap I

Damariscove I

Heron I

Inner

The

Hypocrites

Squirrel I

The Cuckolds

Green Is

Georgetown Island

Southport Island

Pratt's I

Lower

Mark I

MacMahan I

Westport Island

Arrowsic Island

Manana I

Monhegan I

Harbor I

Hall I

Haddock I Crane I

Cape I

The

Rocks

Black

Fisherman I

Friendship

Bremen

Bristol

Damariscotta Waldo

South

Bristol

Edgecomb

Boothbay

Boothbay

Harbor

Woolwich

69°45'0"W

69°30'0"W

69°30'0"W

69°15'0"W

43°45'0"N69°45'0"W

43°45'0"N

44°0'0"N

Map Projection: North_American_1927_UTM_Zone_19NGraticule Units: degrees, minutes, seconds

PETIT MANAN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEME

Map 1-6 Muscongus Bay

Land Protection LegendBase Map LegendNational Land Cover Database

Petit Manan National WildlifeRefuge ComplexPetit Manan National Wildlife RefugeApproved for AcquisitionNationally Significant Islands*Permanently Protected by OthersNationally Significant Islands*Not Permanently ProtectedNationally Significant Bald EagleNesting Sites*Not Permanently ProtectedOther National Wildlife Refuges

* 'Nationally significant' is defined by criteria developed in partnership with Gulf of Maine Program,Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife andconservation partners. Specific criteria used todetermine national significance identified in Chapter 1of the CCP/EIS.

ResidentialCommercial, Industrial or TransportationBare Rock or Barren LandForestedGrasslandWetland

Primary RoadsSecondary RoadsTown LinesFresh Water

Data sources:National Land Cover Database from the US EPADigital Elevation Model from USGS NED dataRoads from USGS 1:100,000 road dataTown lines adaped from Maine Office of GIS dataAll National Wildlife Refuge boundaries from USFWSBathymetry from MassGISMap produced by USFWS R5Carto 1/21/2004

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2.5

Kilometers

0 5 10 15 20 2.5

Miles

1:185,000
ES-14 

Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

F

Thorofare

Mussel Ridge Channel High I

Large Green I

Little Green I

Matinicus Rock

Wooden Ball I

Matinicus Island

Brimstone I

Sheep I

Smith I

Fisherman I

Narrows I

p

Ten Pound I

Roberts Is

Medric Rock

Leadbetter I

Dogfish I

Penobscot I Bluff Head

Carvers I

Otter I

Saddleback Ledge

Sheep I Green's I

Western E

Kim

Two Bush I

Ash I

Pleasant I

Andrews I

So Hewett I uthern I

Metinic I

Hurricane I

Andrew

Scraggy 

Babbidge I

White Is

Monroe I

Vinalhaven I

Crow I

Whitehead I

Graffam I

Sprucehead

Dix I

Metinic Green I

Hog I

Otter I

Ragged I

No Mans Land

Seal I

Mark 

Vinalhaven

Owls

Head

South

Thomaston

69°0'0"W

69°0'0"W

68°45'0"W

68°45'0"W

43°45'0"N 44°0'0"N

43°45'0"N

Map Projection: North_American_1927_UTM_Zone_19NGraticule Units: degrees, minutes, seconds

PETIT MANAN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEM

Map 1-7 Outer Penobscot Bay

Land Protection LegendBase Map LegendNational Land Cover Database

Petit Manan National WildlifeRefuge ComplexPetit Manan National Wildlife RefugeApproved for AcquisitionNationally Significant Islands*Permanently Protected by OthersNationally Significant Islands*Not Permanently ProtectedNationally Significant Bald EagleNesting Sites*Not Permanently ProtectedOther National Wildlife Refuges

* 'Nationally significant' is defined by criteria developed in partnership with Gulf of Maine Program,Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife andconservation partners. Specific criteria used todetermine national significance identified in Chapter 1of the CCP/EIS.

ResidentialCommercial, Industrial or TransportationBare Rock or Barren LandForestedGrasslandWetland

Primary RoadsSecondary RoadsTown LinesFresh Water

Data sources:National Land Cover Database from the US EPADigital Elevation Model from USGS NED dataRoads from USGS 1:100,000 road dataTown lines adaped from Maine Office of GIS dataAll National Wildlife Refuge boundaries from USFWSBathymetry from MassGISMap produced by USFWS R5Carto 1/21/2004

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2.5

Kilometers

0 5 10 15 20 2.5

Mile

1:185,000
Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 ES-15

Belfast Bay

Isleboro

East Penobscot Bay

Fox Islands Thorofare

West Penobscot Bay

Harbor

Ducktrap S Harbor eal Harbor

Rockland

Harbor

North Haven I

Sheep I

Stimpsons I

Butter I

Leadbetter I

Dogfish I

I

Seven Hundred

Acre I

Lime I

Robinson Rock

Egg Rock

Saddle I

Goose I

Beach I

Western I

Gt Sprucehead I

Eagle I

Hog I

Pickering I

Bradbury I

Ensign Is

Bald I

Compass I

Ash I

Andrews I

Sheep I

Cr

Babbidge I

Mark I

Lasell I

Job I Curtis I

Sprucehead

Little

I

Monroe I

Isleboro Island

Sears I

Resolution I

Bear I

Pond I

Mark I

Petit Manan NWR Complex

Rockport Office

St

Northport 

Lincolnville

Camden

Rockport

Rockland

Owls

Head

South

Thomaston

69°15'0"W

69°0'0"W

69°0'0"W

68°45'0"W

44°15'0"N69°15'0"W

Map Projection: North_American_1927_UTM_Zone_19NGraticule Units: degrees, minutes, seconds

PETIT MANAN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEM

Map 1-8 Inner Penobscot Bay

Land Protection LegendBase Map LegendNational Land Cover Database

Petit Manan National WildlifeRefuge ComplexPetit Manan National Wildlife RefugeApproved for AcquisitionNationally Significant Islands*Permanently Protected by OthersNationally Significant Islands*Not Permanently ProtectedNationally Significant Bald EagleNesting Sites*Not Permanently ProtectedOther National Wildlife Refuges

* 'Nationally significant' is defined by criteria developed in partnership with Gulf of Maine Program,Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife andconservation partners. Specific criteria used todetermine national significance identified in Chapter 1of the CCP/EIS.

ResidentialCommercial, Industrial or TransportationBare Rock or Barren LandForestedGrasslandWetland

Primary RoadsSecondary RoadsTown LinesFresh Water

Data sources:National Land Cover Database from the US EPADigital Elevation Model from USGS NED dataRoads from USGS 1:100,000 road dataTown lines adaped from Maine Office of GIS dataAll National Wildlife Refuge boundaries from USFWSBathymetry from MassGISMap produced by USFWS R5Carto 1/21/2004

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2.5

Kilometers

0 5 10 15 20 2.5

Mi

1:185,000
ES-16 

Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex Western Way Casco Passage Jericho Bay Merchant Row

Harbor

Head

Sister Is

Little Duck I

Great Gott I

Long I

Swans Island

Moun

Pell I

Great Duck I

Marshall I

Eastern Ear Western Ear

Isle au

Haut

Kimball I

York I

Spruce I

Sheep I

Saddleback I

Devil I

Bold I

Baker Is

Black I

Little Gott I

Little Spoon I

Placentia I Great Cranberry 

Opechee I

Black I

Merchant I

Burnt I Fog I

Andrews I

Scraggy I

S. Mark I

Johns I

Heron I

Great

Farrel I

Crotch I

McGlathery I

Round I

Mark I

Spoon I

Southwest

Harbor

Stonington

68°45'0"W

68°30'0"W

68°30'0"W

68°15'0"W

68°15'0"

44°0'0"N68°45'0"W

44°15'0"N

Map Projection: North_American_1927_UTM_Zone_19NGraticule Units: degrees, minutes, seconds

PETIT MANAN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEM

Map 1-9 Jericho Bay

Land Protection LegendBase Map LegendNational Land Cover Database

Petit Manan National WildlifeRefuge ComplexPetit Manan National Wildlife RefugeApproved for AcquisitionNationally Significant Islands*Permanently Protected by OthersNationally Significant Islands*Not Permanently ProtectedNationally Significant Bald EagleNesting Sites*Not Permanently ProtectedOther National Wildlife Refuges

* 'Nationally significant' is defined by criteria developed in partnership with Gulf of Maine Program,Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife andconservation partners. Specific criteria used todetermine national significance identified in Chapter 1of the CCP/EIS.

ResidentialCommercial, Industrial or TransportationBare Rock or Barren LandForestedGrasslandWetland

Primary RoadsSecondary RoadsTown LinesFresh Water

Data sources:National Land Cover Database from the US EPADigital Elevation Model from USGS NED dataRoads from USGS 1:100,000 road dataTown lines adaped from Maine Office of GIS dataAll National Wildlife Refuge boundaries from USFWSBathymetry from MassGISMap produced by USFWS R5Carto 1/22/2004

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2.5

Kilometers

0 5 10 15 20 2.5

Mile

1:185,000 
Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 ES-17 Frenchma

Somes Sound

Sullivan Harbor

Skillings River

Mount Desert Narrows

Union River Bay

Eastern Way

Western Way

Blue Hill Harbor

Casco Passage

Blue Hill Bay

Sheep I

White I

Tinker I

Bold I

Bar I

Mount Desert Island

Iron

Prebl

Alley I

Green I Black I

Bartlett Long I I

G tC b I

Moose I

Bar I

Trumpet I

Opechee I

Black I

Hardwood I

Pond I

Hog I

Conary I

Ship I

Egg Ro

Bean 

Sutton I

Little Cranberry I

Hancock

Ellsworth

Trenton Lamoine

Bar

Harbor Mount

Desert

Southwest

Harbor

Tremont

Surry

Blue Hill

Brooklin

Sedgewick

68°45'0"W

68°30'0"W

68°30'0"W

68°15'0"W

68°15'0

44°15'0"N68°45'0"W

44°15'0"N

44°30'0"N

Map Projection: North_American_1927_UTM_Zone_19NGraticule Units: degrees, minutes, seconds

PETIT MANAN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEM

Map 1-10 Frenchmans Bay

Land Protection LegendBase Map LegendNational Land Cover Database

Petit Manan National WildlifeRefuge ComplexPetit Manan National Wildlife RefugeApproved for AcquisitionNationally Significant Islands*Permanently Protected by OthersNationally Significant Islands*Not Permanently ProtectedNationally Significant Bald EagleNesting Sites*Not Permanently ProtectedOther National Wildlife Refuges

* 'Nationally significant' is defined by criteria developed in partnership with Gulf of Maine Program,Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife andconservation partners. Specific criteria used todetermine national significance identified in Chapter 1of the CCP/EIS.

ResidentialCommercial, Industrial or TransportationBare Rock or Barren LandForestedGrasslandWetland

Primary RoadsSecondary RoadsTown LinesFresh Water

Data sources:National Land Cover Database from the US EPADigital Elevation Model from USGS NED dataRoads from USGS 1:100,000 road dataTown lines adaped from Maine Office of GIS dataAll National Wildlife Refuge boundaries from USFWSBathymetry from MassGISMap produced by USFWS R5Carto 1/22/2004

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2.5

Kilometers

0 5 10 15 20 2.5

Mi

1:185,000
ES-18 

Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Moosabec Reach

Eas

Pleasant

Bay

Gouldsboro Bay

Dyer Bay

Pigeon Hill Bay

Narraguagus Bay

Wohoa Bay

Harrington Bay

Pleasant River

Western Bay

Green I

Doyle I

Moose I

Schoodic I Petit Manan I

Flint I

Jordans Delight

Bois Bubert I

Island

Beals

Hog I

Outer Sand I

Fisherman I

Crumple I

Norton I

Goose Is Crowley

Island

Birch Is

Nash I

Browney I

Pond I

Trafton I

Dyer Island Foster I

Norton I

Big Nash I

Egg Rock

Stevens I

Flat I

Island

Great Was

Inner Sand I

Drisko I

Petit Manan NWR Complex

Milbridge Office

Gouldsboro

Division Sawyers Marsh Division

Petit Manan Point Division

Corea

Heath

Division

Jone

Addison

Milbridge Harrington

Steuben

Gouldsboro

Winter

Harbor

68°0'0"W

68°0'0"W

67°45'0"W

67°45'0"W

44°30'0"N

Map Projection: North_American_1927_UTM_Zone_19NGraticule Units: degrees, minutes, seconds

PETIT MANAN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEM

Map 1-11 Petit Manan

Land Protection LegendBase Map LegendNational Land Cover Database

Petit Manan National WildlifeRefuge ComplexPetit Manan National Wildlife RefugeApproved for AcquisitionNationally Significant Islands*Permanently Protected by OthersNationally Significant Islands*Not Permanently ProtectedNationally Significant Bald EagleNesting Sites*Not Permanently ProtectedOther National Wildlife Refuges

* 'Nationally significant' is defined by criteria developed in partnership with Gulf of Maine Program,Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife andconservation partners. Specific criteria used todetermine national significance identified in Chapter 1of the CCP/EIS.

ResidentialCommercial, Industrial or TransportationBare Rock or Barren LandForestedGrasslandWetland

Primary RoadsSecondary RoadsTown LinesFresh Water

Data sources:National Land Cover Database from the US EPADigital Elevation Model from USGS NED dataRoads from USGS 1:100,000 road dataTown lines adaped from Maine Office of GIS dataAll National Wildlife Refuge boundaries from USFWSBathymetry from MassGISMap produced by USFWS R5Carto 1/22/2004

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2.5

Kilometers

0 5 10 15 20 2.5

Mile

1:185,000
Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 ES-19

Cob

Moose Cove

Baileys Mista

Machias Bay

Little Machias Bay

Englishman Bay

Libby Islands

Starboard I

Scabby Is Ram I Foster I

Stone I

Cross Island Double Head Shot Is

Salt I

Chance I

Bare I

GreatSpruceIsland

Roque

Island

Grand 

Halifax I

Hog I

Old Man

The Brothers

Schoppee I

Hickey I

Little River Island

Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge

Edmunds Division

Cutler

Whiting

Machias

Machiasport

Trescott

East

Machias

RoqueBluffs

Jonesboro

67°30'0"W

67°15'0"W

67°15'0"W

67°0'0"W

44°45'0"N67°30'0"W

Map Projection: North_American_1927_UTM_Zone_19NGraticule Units: degrees, minutes, seconds

PETIT MANAN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEM

Map 1-12 Cobscook Bay

Land Protection LegendBase Map LegendNational Land Cover Database

Petit Manan National WildlifeRefuge ComplexPetit Manan National Wildlife RefugeApproved for AcquisitionNationally Significant Islands*Permanently Protected by OthersNationally Significant Islands*Not Permanently ProtectedNationally Significant Bald EagleNesting Sites*Not Permanently ProtectedOther National Wildlife Refuges

* 'Nationally significant' is defined by criteria developed in partnership with Gulf of Maine Program,Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife andconservation partners. Specific criteria used todetermine national significance identified in Chapter 1of the CCP/EIS.

ResidentialCommercial, Industrial or TransportationBare Rock or Barren LandForestedGrasslandWetland

Primary RoadsSecondary RoadsTown LinesFresh Water

Data sources:National Land Cover Database from the US EPADigital Elevation Model from USGS NED dataRoads from USGS 1:100,000 road dataTown lines adaped from Maine Office of GIS dataAll National Wildlife Refuge boundaries from USFWSBathymetry from MassGISMap produced by USFWS R5Carto 1/22/2004

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2.5

Kilometers

0 5 10 15 20 2.5

Mi

1:185,000 
Executive Summary

ES-20 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Although the alternatives differ in many ways, they also share some

similarities. Listed below are actions common to all alternatives:

■ Keep this CCP current through scientific research and adaptive

management.

■ Support our existing partnerships and pursue new ones vital to

successfully managing all aspects of the Refuge Complex, from

protecting species and habitat to providing wildlife-dependent public

use and education.

■ Support our conservation partners, particularly the MDIFW and the

National Audubon Society, in their ongoing protection of nationally

significant habitat for seabirds, wading birds, and nesting bald eagles.

■ Support our refuge friends group, the Friends of Maine Seabird Islands,

and continue our successful program for refuge volunteers, who have

provided thousands of hours of work in refuge administration, public

use, and biology.

■ Develop a Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Coast Guard

to facilitate their access to refuge land to maintain navigational

equipment.

■ Implement our Fire Management Plan and EA (2002), Safety Program

and Operations Plan (2000), Continuity of Operations Plan (1999), and

Hunt Plan and EA (2001) as part of this CCP.

■ Publish these step-down management plans as near as possible to these

projected completion dates: Habitat Management Plan (by 2004);

Habitat and Species Inventory and Monitoring Plan (by 2005); Visitor

Services Plan (by 2005); Facilities and Signs Plan (by 2005); Law

Enforcement Plan (by 2006); Cultural Resources Management and

Protection Plan (by 2008); Compatibility Determinations for WildlifeDependent Recreational Uses (concurrently with the final CCP); and,

our Land Protection Plan (concurrently with the final CCP).

■ Maintain 112 acres in three freshwater impoundments as stopover and

foraging habitat for fall migrating waterfowl, wading birds, and

shorebirds.

■ Maintain Refuge Complex buildings, roads, and parking lots, one cabin

on Cross Island and two on Bois Bubert Island, a dwelling on Metinic

Island, boat ramps and boardwalks on Matinicus Rock, Egg Rock, Petit

Manan, and Libby islands, Two Bush Island light (not designated

historic), the John Hollingsworth Memorial and Birch Point foot trails

on the Petit Manan Point division, and the Egg Rock seawall.

■ Maintain historic lighthouses and associated buildings at least to the

minimum national historic preservation standards, and comply with

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act before disturbing

any ground.

Actions Common to

All Alternatives
Affected Environment

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 ES-21

■ Acquire, as they become available from willing sellers, the

467 privately owned acres within our approved acquisition boundaries;

and, continue to pursue the 400-acre Corea Heath as a no-cost transfer

from the U.S. Navy.

■ Continue refuge revenue sharing payments to the 20 coastal towns

where we own land, subject to changes in its appraised market value,

congressional appropriations, and new acquisitions.

■ Pursue the idea of establishing a new Refuge Complex Headquarters

and Coastal Education Center by developing and evaluating site criteria

in cooperation with our conservation partners, then producing a separate

environmental assessment that includes public involvement.

■ Provide technical assistance to landowners interested in protecting or

enhancing their land for wildlife.

■ Continue our approved special use permits, and evaluate new requests

for special use permits, especially, permits for research that will

improve decisions about managing natural resources or conserving

species of concern and their habitats on the Refuge Complex.

■ Develop a Memorandum of Understanding with the Passamaquoddy

Tribes (Pleasant Point and Indian Township Reservations), and other

interested Wabanaki Tribes to facilitate sharing resources and expertise;

namely the identification and protection of cultural resources.

Our study area falls in the U.S. portion of the Gulf of Maine Rivers ecosystem: in particular, the 7,691 acres on our mainland refuges and 42 refuge islands, and the 151 nationally significant coastal nesting islands not

permanently protected of York, Cumberland, Sagadahoc, Lincoln, Knox,

Hancock, and Washington counties.

Maine has a longer coastline that any other state in the continental United

States. From west to east, its 7,039 miles include the Saco, Casco,

Muscongus, Penobscot, Jericho, Frenchman’s, Pleasant, and Machias bays

(see map 1–2, “Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex”). That

coastline can be divided into five distinct geologic sections (Conkling,

1995), from Maine’s most populous beaches and thousands of acres of salt

marsh in the south to the huge tides (20 feet at West Quoddy Head),

rugged gray and dark-green cliffs, sea stacks, fewer people, and rare

seabirds at the southern end of their breeding range “Down East.”

Maritime influences strongly affect the climate of coastal Maine: annual

precipitation averages 42 inches; temperatures average 45 degrees in the

south, 44 degrees along the mid-coast, and 40 degrees in the north. The

coastal region also has the longest growing season in the state, averaging

between 140 and 160 days per year.

Affected Environment

Introduction

The Refuge Complex

Landscape
Executive Summary

ES-22 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

According to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, the state

exceeds acceptable levels for particulates, sulfur dioxide, and carbon

monoxide. (Visit the Maine DEP website, www.state.me.us/DEP/pubs/

environment 2002). Ground ozone levels, a particular health hazard, are a

concern in the southern counties. In 1978, Congress designated the 7,000-

acre Moosehorn Refuge Wilderness Area a Class 1 air quality area. Class 1

areas receive the highest levels of protection under the Clean Air Act.

Although the Refuge Complex lacks air quality monitoring stations, most

of the air pollutants that affect Moosehorn are also likely at Petit Manan

(Porter, per com, 2002). Acadia National Park operates two air quality

monitoring sites, at McFarland Hill and Cadillac Mountain.

Point- and nonpoint-source pollution affect the quality of Maine’s coastal

waters, which are monitored primarily by two state agencies: the Department of Marine Resources and the Department of Environmental Protection. We do not monitor water quality on the Refuge Complex, so we are

unsure of how those pollutants are directly affecting them.

The U.S. Census estimates Maine’s population at 1,274,923, with an

average density of 41.3 persons per square mile; most live in coastal

counties. The southern coast and mid-coast are growing at almost twice

the rate of the state as a whole. Its top three industries rank (1) education,

health, and social services; (2) retail; and (3) manufacturing. Wood products, pulp and paper dominate Maine’s manufacturing industry, and

consistently pay the state’s “livable wage,” but they are now in a difficult

investment climate. Real estate and land development also support Maine’s

economy. Some natural resource industries with ties to the Refuge Complex also contribute: aquaculture and other commercial fisheries;

ecotourism; commercial seabird viewing; forestry; blueberry production;

hunting and fishing; and environmental education.

The 42 islands in the Refuge Complex display incredibly diverse habitats

and associated fish, wildlife, plant, and insect species. Some are Federalor State-listed as threatened, endangered, or special concern; among them,

bald eagles, roseate terns, common terns, Arctic terns, Atlantic puffins,

razorbill, and harlequin ducks. Mammal species found on the refuges

include: the gray seal, harbor seal, white-tailed deer, moose, black bear,

coyote, fox, raccoon, mink, and otter. Non-native plants such as timothy,

salt spray rose, and raspberry, and invasive plants such as purple loosestrife

also occur. Chapter 3, part 2, “Refuge Complex Island Resources,” discusses

each of the 42 islands of the Refuge Complex in detail: its acquisition history,

its natural resources, and our management of its public use and access.

The seasonal demand for access to Maine coastal islands is high. Historically, their non-consumptive recreational uses have included picnicking,

hiking, wildlife observation, photography, and camping. Their consumptive uses have included berry picking, fishing, shell fishing, and sport

hunting for waterfowl (including eiders), upland game birds, and deer.

Island Resources
Affected Environment

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 ES-23

The public can gain access to coastal islands in various ways, depending

on their ownership. Two Refuge Complex islands form part of the 325-

mile, 104-island waterway maintained by the Maine Island Trail Association (MITA), and are open to overnight camping: Bois Bubert and Halifax

islands. Acadia National Park allows access, primarily by private boat, to

several of its islands. All of the islands owned by the State of Maine are

open to the public, and are accessible by private boat. Some are State

parks; others were acquired to protect habitat for nesting seabirds, and are

closed to public access during the nesting season. The Nature Conservancy also owns islands that are open to the public, and occasionally may

offer trips and tours; but generally, visitors use private boats.

The three divisions of the Refuge Complex on the mainland offer ecologically diverse habitat for a tremendous variety of resident and migratory

species. In addition, the Corea Heath tract, pending a no-cost transfer from

the U.S. Navy, will become a fourth mainland division and further enhance the ecological diversity of the Refuge Complex.

The Petit Manan Point Division

This 2,195-acre division, in the Town of Steuben, Washington County,

offers rocky ledges, sphagnum bogs, blueberry barrens, maritime slope

bog, cedar swamp, jack pine stands, red spruce forests with some mixed

hardwoods, coastal raised heath peatlands, fresh and saltwater marshes,

old hayfields, and more than 10 miles of shoreline with exposed cobble

beaches. State-listed plants include Nova Scotia false-foxglove (Agalinis

neoscotica), Pickering’s reed bent-grass (Calamagrostis pickeringii), saltmarsh sedge (Carex recta), swarthy sedge (Carex adjusta), and moonwort

(Botrychium lunaria) (Widrig 1996). Rare or noteworthy community types

include maritime slope bog, tall meadow, Larch forest, maritime sprucefir, jack pine, spruce-fir flats, spruce woodland, northern white cedar

swamp, and spruce slope forest (MNAP 2002).

Petit Manan Point is noted for its use by migrating waterfowl, songbirds,

shorebirds, and raptors. Land bird species of concern (appendix B) that

breed on the division include American woodcock, eastern wood-pewee,

chestnut-sided warbler, and bobolink. For the past 5 years, the productivity of its Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) station

has been among the top 5 percent of stations in North America, excluding

Alaska. Warblers commonly seen include the magnolia, black-and-white,

black-throated green, and Nashville warbler. Other species commonly

seen include the American redstart, white-throated sparrow, hermit thrush,

Swainson’s thrush, and common yellowthroat. Its three freshwater wetlands cover 112 acres, and are managed to provide habitat for fall migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds. The most abundant species

observed are American black duck, mallard, and green-winged teal.

Mainland Resources
Executive Summary

ES-24 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

The Petit Manan Point division also maintains two hiking trails: The John

Hollingsworth Memorial Trail and the Birch Point Trail. Occasionally,

refuge staff and volunteers lead interpretive programs or teachers lead

environmental education classes there. It is not open to hunting.

The Gouldsboro Bay Division

This 607-acre division, in the Town of Gouldsboro, Hancock County,

offers mature conifer forest, northern hardwood-mixed forest, early successional deciduous forest, maritime salt marsh and estuary, and saltwater

tidal and aquatic bed habitats. The ages of its forest stands vary, because

of limited cutting before we acquired the property.

This division also has a MAPS station, which it has monitored for the past

3 years. Its common bird species are the same as those mentioned above.

Bald eagles nested there in 2001 and 2002.

A hiking trail to the salt marsh, an overlook, and the interpretation of an

historical site are in the developmental stage. Unfortunately, all-terrain

vehicles (ATVs) are illegally using this area for access to the salt marshes,

and more enforcement is needed. Signs are in place to alert ATV users that

the vehicles are not allowed on refuge lands. This division is open to

hunting migratory game birds, waterfowl, and small and big game, under

State and refuge regulations.

The Sawyers Marsh Division

This 933-acre division, in the Town of Milbridge, Washington County, lies

northeast of Petit Manan Point, at the head of a broad tidal marsh used

extensively by migratory shorebird and waterfowl species including black

duck, and wood duck. Many species of shorebirds and wading birds feed

in its shallow waters and the adjacent inter-tidal areas. Most of the marsh

is privately owned. The upland habitat surrounding it consists of several

large stands of white birch, various other hardwood species, red spruce,

and balsam fir. The ages of those stands vary, partly because of a wildfire in

the early 1950s and partly because of cutting before we acquired the property.

Surrounded by privately owned land, this division offers little opportunity

for public access. As at the Gouldsboro Bay division, ATV’s are illegally

using this area for access to the salt marshes. Signs are in place to alert

ATV users that their vehicles are not allowed on the refuge. The Sawyers

Marsh division is open to hunting migratory game birds, waterfowl, and

small and big game, under state and refuge regulations.

The Corea Heath Division

This 400-acre coastal plateau bog is situated on the Schoodic peninsula, in

the Town of Gouldsboro, Washington County. We are awaiting its no-cost

transfer from the U.S. Navy, which has used it since the 1950’s as a
Environmental Consequences

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 ES-25

communications facility, but has also designated 240 acres of the heath as

an ecological preserve.

Among 115 coastal raised peatlands in Maine, the Corea Heath ranks 5th

for coastal peat land features and 6th for all peat land features. Its ecological communities include open bog, forested bog, open fen, acidic ledges,

coniferous and birch woodlands, and more than a mile of boulder and

cobble shoreline. In 1996, the University of Maine and Acadia National

Park completed a biological inventory. A copy is on file at Refuge Complex headquarters in Milbridge. The heath has been closed to public use

since the U.S. Navy acquired it.

A cooperative, interagency approach to protecting the resources of the

Gulf of Maine watershed offers the greatest opportunity to improve conditions over the long term. We can more easily predict the extent and duration of consequences on the geographic scale of the 7,961-acre Refuge

Complex than on the scale of the 26-million-acre watershed. Thus, our

predictions may prove more accurate on the smaller scale than on the larger.

Some types of actions do not require further description or analysis here,

because they do not significantly affect the human environment: for

example, researching or collecting information about refuge resources;

conducting environmental education and interpretation; building, operating, and maintaining refuge infrastructure (unless major construction is

involved); or enforcing Federal laws or regulations. Only minor changes

in new or revised management plans or in the amount or types of public

use also fall under this NEPA exclusion.

At the end of this section, Table 1-1, “A summary of the effects on the

Refuge Complex environment by alternative,” predicts the foreseeable

consequences of implementing each alternative on the major resources

listed below. When we lack reliable, quantitative information about how

some actions could impact resources of concern, we describe their direct or

indirect effects in the qualitative terms “positive,” “neutral,” or “negative.”

No action proposed in any alternative violates the Clean Water Act. Over

the long term, considering direct and indirect impacts, alternative C would

provide the greatest benefit to improved water quality and soils protection.

This is due to the greater land protection it affords, while its habitat and

public use management designs would maintain or restore water quality

and soils. Alternative B would be ranked next highest, followed by

alternative A, then alternative D.

No action proposed in any alternative violates State or Federal EPA standards for the Clean Air Act. Alternative D contributes the least additional

air pollution caused by vehicle emissions and prescribed fire. Alternative

A, then B, respectively, follows with the next lowest contribution by these

Environmental

Consequences

Effects on Water Quality

and Soils

Effects on Air Quality
Executive Summary

ES-26 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

sources. Alternative C proposes the most acres of prescribed fire, and

would result in the highest number of visitors traveling by automobile;

however, those impacts are partially offset by its substantially greater land

protection benefits, compared with the other alternatives. In summary,

alternative D would benefit air quality the most, followed by alternative A,

then B, then C.

Overall property tax losses to towns are greatest in alternative C, because

it proposes the largest expansion of the Refuge Complex, followed by

alternative B, then A. No property taxes are lost in alternative D, because

it proposes no expansion.

Alternative C would possibly result in two new commercial seabird

viewing opportunities, while alternative B would possibly result in one

new opportunity. We would maintain current opportunities with the implementation of alternative A, while there would be a loss of opportunity on

Petit Manan Island with implementation of alternative D.

Alternatives B and C would provide the greatest increases in hunting

opportunities and associated revenue. An approximate increase of 114

hunter days is predicted with either alternative, generating an additional

$11,772 to the local economy. There would be no change in hunter opportunity or revenues generated with alternative A. Alternative D proposes to

eliminate hunting, which would result in a total loss of hunter opportunity

and revenues generated.

None of the alternatives would appreciably impact Maine’s sheep industry;

however, two local sheep operators would be most impacted by alternative D,

as it would cause them to incur some expense in modifying their operations.

Predicting with any certainty the potential impacts on the aquaculture

industry is difficult, since our Ecological Services Maine Field Office

recommendation for a quarter–mile buffer near finfish operations are not

always incorporated into ACOE permits. However, alternative C, which

proposes the largest expansion, has the greatest potential to impact individual aquaculture operations. At present, we know of six aquaculture

leases which have been issued off islands proposed for acquisition in this

alternative. Of the six, two leases are for low intensity shellfish operations

and three are finfish operations over a quarter-mile from the island proposed for acquisition. Only one facility, Treat Island, would be a concern

if the current facility were to be moved or expanded. The island expansion

proposed in alternative B has the next highest potential to impact the

industry, although to our knowledge, no aquaculture leases have been

issued next to proposed islands. Alternative A follows next, although no

leases are known. No impact would result from alternative D.

Effects on the Local and

Regional Economy
Environmental Consequences

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 ES-27

Compared with alternatives A and D, alternatives B and C would appreciably expand Service ownership (respectively, 87 islands or 151 islands, or

portions thereof) where priority public uses would be allowed outside

seabird and bald eagle nesting seasons. Since virtually all of those islands

are privately owned, that would represent an increase in authorized public

access to Maine coastal islands. Alternative A includes a 30-island expansion. Alternative D would not allow any public access on refuge islands.

Over the next 15 years, we project increased visitation in alternatives A,

B, and C, commensurate with their proposed expansions and increased

visitor services programs. Alternative C would realize the greatest potential increase in annual visitation with an additional 23,500 visitors; followed by alternative B with 11,750; and, alternative C with 4,700. Under

alternative D, we predict annual visitation would actually decline over

current levels over the next 15 years, since the seabird colonies in the

most popular viewing areas would no longer be intensively managed and

their numbers could decline.

We would expect to meet or exceed the demand for priority public use

programs under alternatives B and C. We would increase our environmental education, interpretation, wildlife observation and photography programs on the mainland, offer a new deer hunting opportunity on Petit

Manan Point Division, and continue to provide waterfowl hunting on the

majority of islands. Camping would continue to be allowed on two Refuge

Complex islands, in partnership with MITA. Alternative C is the only

alternative that would allow furbearer trapping in certain areas, a new

opportunity on the Refuge Complex. Alternative A would continue current

programs, where unmet requests for programs are a common occurrence.

Alternative D would emphasize environmental education on the mainland

and with partners, but would scale back on programs that draw more

people to the area.

All of the alternatives comply with legal mandates to protect and maintain

archeological and historic sites. All of the alternatives also propose to

improve relations with the Passamaquoddy and other Wabanaki Tribes

through a partnership agreement. Alternatives B and C would improve our

baseline information on existing and potential sites through surveys. We

would develop partnerships to protect and restore historic sites. Under

alternatives A and D, very little change would occur; we would continue

to meet only the minimum standards for protection of historic sites.

In alternatives A, B, and C, few changes in vegetation management would

occur on the Refuge Complex. The few changes that would occur under

alternatives B and C include up to 100 acres of northern hardwood-mixed

forest and scrub shrub managed to diversify age classes, and active management of rare plant sites and jack pine stands. In alternative D, no

vegetation management would occur, so any changes would be the result

Effects on Public Access,

Educational and

Recreational

Opportunities

Effects on Cultural

Resources

Effects on Vegetation

and Habitats
Executive Summary

ES-28 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

of natural processes. On the islands, the primary difference in active

vegetation management would be associated with the number of proposed

seabird restoration projects. In alternative A, it would remain at 6 projects;

in alternative B it would be 12 projects; in alternative C it would be

18 projects, and in alternative D, it would be minimal maintenance of the

existing 6 projects.

Alternatives A, B, and C would maintain the seasonal closures to protect

roseate terns and bald eagles nesting on the Refuge Complex. Alternative

D would close Refuge Complex islands to public use year-round. Roseate

terns are nesting on two Refuge Complex islands, and bald eagles are

nesting on four islands and the Gouldsboro Bay Division. Alternatives A,

B and C would continue to manage the six seabird restoration projects,

which provide nesting or foraging sites for roseate tern. Alternative C,

with the largest expansion proposal, would provide the greatest long-term

benefits to roseate tern and bald eagles by protecting existing and potential

future nesting sites, and would contribute the most to those species’

recovery goals. Alternative B would provide the second greatest long-term

benefits, followed by alternative A. Alternative D does not propose an

expansion, and would provide the least support to recovery goals.

Alternatives A, B and C would maintain the public access restriction on

Refuge Complex islands during the seabird nesting season, which includes

the nesting seasons for wading birds and waterfowl. Alternative D would

close all Refuge Complex islands to public use year-round. All alternatives would maintain the freshwater impoundments on the Petit Manan

Point division so important to thousands of migrating waterfowl.

Alternative C, with the largest expansion proposal and 12 proposed new

seabird restoration projects, would provide the greatest benefit to those

species. It would also identify important wading bird and waterfowl

habitats on the mainland in need of protection, and pursue Service acquisition under a separate authorization, as warranted. Alternative B, with the

next largest expansion proposal and six proposed new seabird restoration

projects, would provide the next greatest benefit, followed by alternative

A, with its smaller expansion and continued management of six seabird

restoration sites. Alternative D does not propose an expansion, and would

dramatically scale back seabird restoration on the six projects.

All of the alternatives strive to protect native species and habitat diversity.

No significant changes to vertebrate or invertebrate population viability or

species distribution is predicted under any of the alternatives, even after

consideration of their proposed public use, hunting, trapping, and predator

management. Additional protection of native species would be afforded by

the proposed Refuge Complex expansions in alternatives A, B, and C.

Alternative C, with the largest expansion proposal, would afford the

Effects on Threatened

and Endangered

Species

Effects on Seabirds,

Wading Birds, and

Waterfowl

Effects on Other Native

Wildlife of Management

Concern
Environmental Consequences

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 ES-29

greatest benefits to native species, followed by alternative B, then A.

Alternative D does not propose an expansion.

Only alternatives B and C recommend wilderness designations. Thirteen

islands in 8 WSAs would be managed according to the provisions of the

Wilderness Act, wilderness management regulations (50 CFR 35) and

Service policy (6 RM 8) to maintain their wilderness character while also

accomplishing refuge purposes and the Refuge System mission. They

would continue to be accessible by motorboat, but the use of motorized

vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport on the islands

would be allowed only for (1) emergency purposes or (2) when necessary

to meet minimum requirements for administering the area as wilderness or

to accomplish refuge purposes. There are no impacts predicted on current

compatible, priority public uses occurring on Refuge islands. Alternatives A

and D do not recommend wilderness designation; those islands would not

be managed to preserve their wilderness character; they would only be

managed to accomplish refuge purposes and the mission of the Refuge

System. Alternative D would exclude public access year-round on any island

in the Refuge Complex.

Our analysis of environmental justice concludes that we do not predict any

of our management alternatives would cause disproportionately high and

adverse human health or economic impacts to minority or low-income

populations in coastal Maine.

Cumulative effects can arise from individually minor but collectively

significant actions taken separately over time, including other agencies’

actions, if they are interrelated and affect the same environment. None of

our proposed alternatives are expected to have significant cumulative

adverse impacts on air quality, soils, hydrology, wetlands, or water quality

in coastal Maine or elsewhere in New England.

Each of the alternatives proposes varying participation in ongoing, watershed-based land protection partnerships. The greatest number of islands to

be acquired by the Service is 151, under alternative C. These are scattered

from the New Hampshire border to Cutler, Maine, and represent only

3 percent of the estimated 4,617 islands along the Maine coast. No one

area of the coast would be disproportionately affected. When combined

with actions by other Federal, State, and local organizations working in

coastal Maine, we expect all of the alternatives to have a positive, cumulative effect on soils, hydrology, wetlands, and water quality within their

respective watersheds.

All of the alternatives are intended to maintain or improve biological

resources on the Refuge Complex, in coastal Maine, and within the Gulf

of Maine Rivers ecosystem. The combination of our management actions

with other organizations’ actions could result in significant, beneficial

Effects of Wilderness

Recommendations

Effects on

Environmental Justice

Cumulative Effects on

the Environment
Executive Summary

ES-30 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

cumulative effects by (1) increasing protection and management for

Federal and State-listed threatened and endangered species; (2) improving

uplands and wetlands habitats that are regionally declining; and (3) reducing invasive, exotic plants and animals. We expect none of the alternatives

to have significant adverse cumulative effects on the cultural resources or

the economy of coastal Maine.

This section evaluates the relationship between local, short-term uses of

the human environment and its long-term productivity. By long-term, we

mean that an impact would extend beyond the 15-year planning horizon of

this draft CCP/EA; by short-term, we mean less than 15 years.

In summary, we predict that all alternatives would contribute positively to

maintaining or enhancing the long-term productivity of the environment

of coastal Maine. All of the alternatives strive to maintain or enhance the

long-term productivity and sustainability of natural resources on the

Refuge Complex. In varying degrees, the alternatives propose actions that

promote watershed- or ecosystem-wide partnerships geared to identifying

and protecting important coastal habitats. The alternatives strive to protect

our Federal trust species and the habitats they depend on, as in the case of

public use restrictions during the seabird nesting seasons. Alternatives A,

B, and C would maintain the intensive seabird restoration projects that

have resulted in important regional increases in these species. Outreach

and environmental education are a priority in each alternative to encourage Refuge Complex visitors to be better stewards of our environment.

All alternatives propose stepped-up outreach and enforcement to eliminate

existing uses determined to be not appropriate and incompatible, such as

ATV use and rockweed harvesting. The purpose is to reduce impacts on

wildlife and habitats and enhance the long-term productivity of these sites.

While the intent is the same, alternatives A and D would not provide the

staffing or funding levels to ensure that these uses can be eliminated.

The dedication of certain areas to developments, such as roads, trails,

visitor facilities on the mainland divisions, and research facilities on the

islands represents a loss of long-term productivity on localized areas, but

is not considered significant given the land base. Camping in designated

areas on two islands would be allowed to continue in alternatives A, B and

C, but in the latter two alternatives we would monitor it closely, and we

would establish thresholds of change which may trigger eliminating this

use. Sheep grazing would also be allowed to continue in alternatives A, B,

and C, but, as with camping, we would monitor it closely and develop

specific operating prescriptions in a special use permit.

Unavoidable adverse effects arise from actions that could cause significant

harm to the human environment but cannot be avoided, even with mitigation measures. We considered property tax losses to towns, increased

visitation and its effects, and prescribed fire as the principle activities that

Relationship between

Short-term Uses of the

Human Environment

and the Enhancement of

Long-term Productivity

Unavoidable Adverse

Effects
Environmental Consequences

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 ES-31

could have unavoidable adverse effects. In its section “Effects on the

Local and Regional Economy,” chapter 4, “Environmental Consequences,”

describes the actual losses in property tax revenue for towns. Although

their effects on coastal towns vary, none of the alternatives would contribute to a significant, cumulative loss of tax revenue in any one town.

Alternatives A, B, and C respectively predict increasing levels in visitation. Enhanced services and facilities for Refuge Complex visitors will

draw more people to the area; in particular, we are predicting more groups

with increased environmental education and interpretive programs. Even

under a carefully designed program, increased visitation would result in

higher levels of disturbance to wildlife, although most of those would

occur in localized areas. We intend to manage our visitor use programs to

minimize those effects. The effects of prescribed burning in treating

vegetation would impact visual quality for a short time each year (< 7 days),

but will be implemented under conditions that comply with State Clean

Air Act and Federal EPA standards. Those effects would not be significant.

Finally, we will undertake biological monitoring as part of all alternatives,

to enable our staff to adapt management actions and address any unforeseen situations. As a result, we predict none of the alternatives would

result in significant, unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts.

Irreversible commitments of resources are those which cannot be reversed,

except perhaps in the extreme long term or under unpredictable circumstances. An example of an irreversible commitment is an action which

contributes to the extinction of a species. Once extinct, it can never be

replaced.

In contrast, irretrievable commitments of resources are those which can be

reversed, given sufficient time and resources, but represent a loss in

production or use for period of time. An example of an irretrievable

commitment is the maintenance of forest and shrub land as open field and

grasslands. If for some reason grasslands were no longer an objective,

they would gradually revert to shrub land and forest, or the process could

be expedited with plantings.

Only a few actions proposed in the alternatives would result in an irreversible commitment of resources. One is committing land to the construction

of the proposed new Refuge Complex Headquarters and Coastal Education Center. All alternatives propose that we continue to pursue this action.

A separate environmental assessment will evaluate the site-specific impacts of constructing this facility, once a location is selected.

Another irreversible commitment of resources impacting local communities is Service land acquisition. Alternatives, A, B, and C propose a Refuge

Complex expansion at increasing levels, respectively. Once those lands

become part of the Refuge Complex, their reversion to private ownership

is unlikely.

Potential Irreversible

and Irretrievable

Commitments of

Resources
Executive Summary

ES-32 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

The commitment of resources to maintaining the freshwater impoundments, grasslands and open fields (alternatives, A, B, and C only) is very

small compared with the benefits derived from the increased biodiversity.

On the mainland, these wetlands, grasslands, and fields provide nesting,

foraging, and migrating habitat for many migratory bird species of conservation concern. They also benefit Refuge Complex visitors by providing

wildlife observation opportunities. On the islands, maintaining grasslands

and fields is vitally important to providing high quality seabird nesting

habitat.

Alternatives A, B, and C would maintain the seasonal, public access

closures on nesting seabird islands. Alternative D would close the islands

to public use year-round. This represents an irretrievable loss of resources

for some members of the public visiting the Refuge Complex in the future.

However, keeping in mind that the primary purpose of the closures is to

protect migratory bird habitat, the trade-off of reduced public access

during the critical seabird nesting season is warranted. Also, with more

than 4,617 islands off the coast of Maine, there are likely others that could

provide recreational opportunities at the times when the Refuge Complex

islands are closed.

Red-winged blackbird

USFWS photo
Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 ES-33

Refuge 

Complex 

Resources 

Alternative A 

Current Management 

Alternative B 

Service’s Preferred Alternative C 

Physical Resources

Water Quality and Soils 

Service acquisition of 1,501 acres not in conservation ownership increases direct, permanent benefits to water quality and soils productivity Negligible increase in negative impacts from estimated 10% rise in visitation, which would be offset by limited impact monitoring and “Leave No Trace” outreach program Some low intensity, short duration negative effects from annual use of herbicides, and prescribed fire (~ 55 acres) Some localized soil erosion along Metinic Island shoreline from sheep grazing Some soil compaction from use on existing Petit Manan Point trails No violations of Federal or State Clean Water Act standards 

Service acquisition of 2,934 acres not in conservation ownership considerably increases direct, permanent benefits to water quality and soil productivity Potential to improve water quality and soil productivity on high visitation and sheepgrazed islands increased monitoring and threshold standards and limits set; no significant negative impacts from estimated increases in visitation since most visitors would be on seabird viewing boat tours Some low intensity, short duration negative effects from annual use of herbicides, and prescribed fire (~110 acres) Some localized, permanent soil compaction from use on existing and planned trails on all 4 mainland divisions; however, designated trail would also reduce “unauthorized” trail use in more sensitive areas No violations of Federal or State Clean Water Act standards 

Impacts resemble alternative B except: Service acquisition of 6,930 acres not in conservation ownership greatly increases direct, permanent benefits to water quality and soil productivity Some low intensity, short duration negative effects from the annual use of herbicides and prescribed fire (~ 250 acres) Slight increase in localized soil compaction from construction of at least 2 photo blinds. No violations of Federal or State Clean Water Act standards 

Service 467 acconservminimapermanquality Increaspermancurrent they wopublic uwould bthe interestoragreatly Some suse on Point trNo violState Cstandar

Table 1-1 Summary of the effects of management alternatives on Refuge Complex resources
ES-34 

Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Table 1-1 Summary of the effects of management alternatives on Refuge Complex resources (cont’d.)

Refuge 

Complex 

Resources 

Alternative A 

Current Management 

Alternative B 

Service’s Preferred Alternative C 

Physical Resources (cont’d)

Air Quality Potential for contributing 

direct and indirect shortduration air pollution from prescribed burning on up to 55 acres/year; however, implementation would adhere to stipulations in 2002 Fire Plan to minimize effects Increase in direct, longterm benefits from protecting and maintaining over 9,000 acres (existing and expanded Refuge Complex lands) of natural vegetation and wetlands, which act as pollution filters Negligible contribution to air pollution from refuge visitor vehicle emissions; however, refuge visitation is mostly incidental to other primary destinations No violation of Federal or State Clean Air Act standards, including no impacts to Class I airshed over Moosehorn Wilderness Area 

Same type of impacts as described for alternative A; however, the difference is in the increased levels and distribution of the impact. None of these impacts is considered significant: Prescribed burning would occur on up to 110 acres/year; Over 10,000 acres (existing and expanded Refuge Complex lands) of natural vegetation and wetlands would be protected and functioning as pollution filters Slight increase in vehicle emissions predicted from increased visitation in summer and fall tourist seasons; however, refuge visitation is mostly incidental to other primary destinations No violation of Federal or State Clean Air Act standards, including impacts to Class I airshed over Moosehorn Wilderness Area 

Same type of impacts as described for alternative A; however, the difference is in the considerable increased levels and distribution of the impact. None of these impacts is considered significant: Prescribed burning would occur on up to 250 acres/year; Over 14,000 acres (existing and expanded Refuge Complex lands)of natural vegetation and wetlands would be protected and functioning as pollution filters Greatest increase in vehicle emissions predicted from increased visitation in summer and fall tourist seasons; however, refuge visitation is mostly incidental to other primary destinations No violation of Federal or State Clean Air Act standards, including impacts to Class I airshed over Moosehorn Wilderness Area 

No prescriboccur; no imfrom this soNo violation Clean Air Aincluding imairshed oveWilderness 
Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 ES-35

Table 1-1 Summary of the effects of management alternatives on Refuge Complex resources (cont’d.)

Refuge 

Complex 

Resources 

Alternative A 

Current Management 

Alternative B 

Service’s Preferred Alternative C 

Socioeconomic Resources

Local and Regional Economies 

Proposed refuge island expansion would result in an estimated total of $31,000 property tax increase in affected towns; an overall average rate of 0.04% per town No new commercial seabird viewing opportunities, thus no additional economic outputs No appreciable increases in benefits to local economies from refuge visitation; hunter- generated expenditures (e.g., equipment purchases, food, lodging, services, etc) would generate revenues estimated to be $66,710/year 

Proposed refuge island expansion would result in an estimated total of $130,000 property tax increase in affected towns; an overall average rate of 0.05% per town Increased direct and indirect economic benefits over the long term from establishment of at least 1 new seabird viewing location No appreciable increases in benefits to local economies from refuge visitation; however, the new refuge hunt on Petit Manan Pt division would generate additional hunter -expenditures (e.g., equipment purchases, food, lodging, services, etc) in local communities of about $11,712/year over current levels 

Proposed refuge island expansion would result in the highest estimated total of $225,000 property tax increase in affected towns; an overall average rate of 0.08% per town Highest increase in direct and indirect economic benefits over the long term from establishment of at least 2 new seabird viewing location No appreciable increases in benefits to local economies from refuge visitation; however, hunter-generated benefits similar to alternative B 

No islachange contribregionashort-teproperOver thwould outputs seabird opportof hunt
ES-36 

Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Table 1-1 Summary of the effects of management alternatives on Refuge Complex resources (cont’d.)

Refuge 

Complex 

Resources 

Alternative A 

Current Management 

Alternative B 

Service’s Preferred Alternative C 

Socioeconomic Resources (cont’d)

Public Access, Educational and Recreational Opportunities 

Slight increase in visitation consistent with predictions of increased tourism in surrounding towns (~ 10%); current visitation is 47,000 visitor days annually (50% on seabird viewing boat tours) Maintain current seasonal access restrictions on refuge islands to protect nesting seabirds or bald eagles All 30 islands proposed for Service acquisition would have seasonal restrictions imposed; a likely change (but extent unknown) from current private ownership No change to compatible, priority public use programs and infrastructure offered; camping would continue on 2 islands on MITA trail 

Appreciable increase in visitation in response to increased visitor services programs; namely school groups participating in environmental education programs; visitation would increase to ~ 58,750 visitor days annually Maintain seasonal access restrictions on refuge islands; modified to allow earlier access on eider and gull-only islands All 87 islands proposed for Service acquisition would have seasonal access restrictions imposed; a change (but extent unknown) from access allowed by current private ownership Marked increase in wildlife observation and photographic opportunities with new trails on Gouldsboro Bay, Sawyers Marsh, and Corea Heath mainland division; also, one new seabird viewing site would be established over the long term New deer hunting opportunity on Petit Manan Pt division and waterfowl hunting on newly acquired islands; however, may occasionally impact use of area by other non-hunting visitors Maintain camping on 2 islands on MITA trail with increased oversight and monitorin

g

Largest increase in annual visitation predicted, ~ 70,500 visitor days, due to considerable increase in refuge land base Impacts from compatible, priority public use programs resemble alternative B; except expanded environmental education and interpretive programs and 2 new seabird viewing sites would be established over the long term All 151 islands proposed for Service acquisition would have seasonal access restrictions imposed; a change (but extent unknown) from access allowed by current private ownership New opportunity offered for furbearer trapping in certain locations under refuge and State regulations 

Majoover drampubleducrecresince closeyear progofferHuntoppoelim
Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 ES-37

Table 1-1 Summary of the effects of management alternatives on Refuge Complex resources (cont’d.)

Refuge 

Complex 

Resources 

Alternative A 

Current Management 

Alternative B 

Service’s Preferred Alternative C 

Socioeconomic Resources (cont’d)

Cultural resources 

Acquisition of 1,501 acres, including 30 islands not in conservation ownership, would afford permanent protection of cultural sites No violation of National or State Historic Preservation Act standards; however, only minimal maintenance on lighthouse structures Improved relations with Passamaquoddy and other Wabanaki Tribes through development of an MOU 

Appreciable increase in permanent protection of cultural sites with proposed acquisition of 2,934 acres, including 87 islands, not in conservation ownership. No violation of National or State Historic Preservation Act standards; increased restoration of historic structures Improved relations with Passamaquoddy and other Wabanaki Tribes through development of an MOU 

Greatest increase in permanent protection of cultural sites with proposed acquisition of 6,930, including all or portions of 151 islands, not in conservation ownership. No violation of National or State Historic Preservation Act standards; increased restoration of historic structures Improved relations with Passamaquoddy and other Wabanaki Tribes through development of an MOU 

Provides for additprotectiogreatest human dislands saccess aImprovePassamWabanadevelop

Wilderness No wilderness proposed Recommends 13 islands in 

8 wilderness study areas as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System 

Recommends 13 islands in 8 wilderness study areas as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System 

No wilde

Biological Resources

Vegetation and Habitats 

No change from current habitat management priorities: 1) maintain 6 seabird restoration projects on refuge islands; continue to use mowing, prescribed burning, herbicides, and sheep grazing as management tools 

Expand habitat and management priorities to include: 1) maintain 12 seabird restoration projects on refuge islands; continue to use mowing, prescribed burning, herbicides, and sheep grazing as management tools 

Same as alternative B except: Expand to 18 seabird restoration projects on refuge islands 

Dramatimanageand habsuccessiGrasslasuccesschange forest haterm on mrestoration managechange 
ES-38 

Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Table 1-1 Summary of the effects of management alternatives on Refuge Complex resources (cont’d.)

Refuge 

Complex 

Resources 

Alternative A 

Current Management 

Alternative B 

Service’s Preferred Alternative C 

Biological Resources (cont’d)

 2) maintain up to 70 acres of 

open field habitat on Petit Manan Pt division; continue to use mowing and prescribed burning as management tools 3) maintain 3 freshwater impoundments (~ 112 acres) on Petit Manan Pt division 

2) maintain up to 100 acres of early successional and open field habitat on Petit Manan Pt division 3) maintain 3 freshwater impoundments (~ 112 acres) on Petit Manan Pt division 4) control invasive plants before they can become established 5) increase protection of rare plant sites by developing site management and monitoring plans 6) increase protection of salt marsh habitats through increased inventories and monitoring 7) maintain forested habitats for species of conservation concern 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Maintain permanent protection of active and historic bald eagle and roseate tern nesting sites on current refuge lands, including predator control and seasonal closures 

Maintain permanent protection of active and historic bald eagle and roseate tern nesting sites on current refuge lands, including predator control and seasonal closures 

Maintain permanent protection of active and historic bald eagle and roseate tern nesting sites on current refuge lands, including predator control and seasonal closures 

Maintaiprotectihistoric roseate current howevepredatoadverseroseate 
Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 ES-39

Table 1-1 Summary of the effects of management alternatives on Refuge Complex resources (cont’d.)

Refuge 

Complex 

Resources 

Alternative A 

Current Management 

Alternative B 

Service’s Preferred Alternative C 

Biological Resources (cont’d)

 Protect an additional active 

bald eagle site, and historic bald eagle and roseate tern nesting sites through proposed expansion 

Appreciably increase protection of active bald sites; 37 islands in expansion proposal are bald eagle nesting sites, and 2 are historic roseate tern nesting sites. Refuge expansion proposal provides for bald eagles and roseate terns to expand to new areas 

Appreciably increase protection of active bald eagle sites; 101 islands in expansion proposal are bald eagle nesting sites, and 2 are historic roseate tern nesting sites. Refuge expansion proposal provides for bald eagles and roseate terns to expand to new areas 

No new new re

Seabirds, Wading birds, and Waterfowl 

Increased, long-term benefits from habitat and vegetation management noted above; nesting and migration habitats to be maintained; predators would continue to be managed at 6 intensively managed seabird restoration sites Increased protection of nesting and migration habitat, through proposed acquisition, including 30 islands 

Direct, long-term benefits from habitat and vegetation management noted above; nesting and migration habitats to be maintained; predators would be managed at 12 intensively managed seabird restoration sites Populations and productivity levels to be sustained or increased over baseline year 2000 levels; improved distribution and #’s of seabird colonies over the long-term through proposed acquisition, including 87 islands not in conservation ownership Birds would also benefit from seasonal closures and laughing gull control 

Direct, long-term benefits from habitat and vegetation management noted above; nesting and migration habitats to be maintained; predators would be managed at 18 intensively managed seabird restoration sites Populations and productivity levels to be sustained or increased over baseline year 2000 levels; affords greatest opportunity to improve the distribution and #’s of seabird colonies over the long-term through proposed acquisition, including all or portions of, 151 islands not in conservation ownership Birds would also benefit from seasonal closures and laughing gull control 

Affords nesting quality reduceseabird  Lack ocontrolproposwould nesting 
ES-40 

Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Table 1-1 Summary of the effects of management alternatives on Refuge Complex resources (cont’d.)

Refuge 

Complex 

Resources 

Alternative A 

Current Management 

Alternative B 

Service’s Preferred Alternative C 

Biological Resources (cont’d)

Other Native Wildlife of Concern 

No appreciable changes to numbers and distribution of native wildlife of concern on existing refuge lands; however, some loss of individual native wildlife, which are predating on nesting seabirds, and/or are hunted during our regulated hunting seasons No expectation that refuge management would result in a loss in population viability for any native species of concern Increased, permanent protection of habitat supporting a wide diversity of native wildlife through proposed acquisition, including 30 islands 

Same as alternative A except: Appreciable increase in permanent protection of habitat supporting a wide diversity of native wildlife through proposed acquisition, including 87 islands Some additional loss of white-tailed deer with new hunting program on Petit Manan Point 

Same as alternative B except: Affords the greatest permanent protection of habitat supporting native wildlife through proposed acquisition, including all or portions of 151 islands Some loss of individual animals through furbearer trapping program 

Same aexcept: No loss to huntias thesoccur Provideadditionprotectirefuge a(467 ac
Environmental Consequences

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 ES-41

Table 1-2 Land acquisition summary by alternative 

Alternative A 

(Current 

Management) 

Alternative B 

(Service’ Preferred 

Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

Lands to be acquired within the existing, approved Petit Manan Refuge boundary* 

Mainland 120 acres 120 acres 120 acres 120 acres 

Islands (or parts of) 14 islands** 

(347 acres) 

14 islands** 

(347 acres) 

14 islands** 

(347 acres) 

14 islands** 

(347 acres) 

Corea Heath 400 acres 400 acres 400 acres 400 acres 

Lands proposed for acquisition which would expand the existing, approved Petit Manan Refuge boundary

Mainland 153 acres 153 acres 153 acres 0 

Islands (or parts of) 30 islands 

(881 acres) 

87 islands 

(2,314 acres) 

151 islands 

(6,310 acres) 

0 

Total Acres To Be 

Acquired 

(by alternative) 

1,901 acres 3,334 acres 7,330 acres 867 acres 

* All lands acquired will become part of Petit Manan Refuge; also, acquisition has been on-going during development of 

the CCP. Contact Refuge Headquarters for latest information. 

** Six of these islands are already part-owned by the Service; or in the process of Service acquisition. 


Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

P.O. Box 279, Water Street

Milbridge, ME 04658-0279

207/546-2124

petitmanan@fws.gov

http://petitmanan.fws.gov

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Website

http://www.fws.gov

For National Wildlife Refuge System Information:

1800/344 WILD

http://www.refuges.fws.gov

Federal Relay Service

for the deaf or hard of hearing

1800/877 8339

April 2004