The Purpose of and Need for Action

■ Introduction

■ The Purpose of and Need for Action

■ Project Area

■ Service Policies, Legal Mandates, and National and Regional

Conservation Plans Guiding the Project

■ Refuge Purposes and Land Acquisition History

■ Existing Refuge Operational Plans (“Step-down” plans)

■ Refuge Complex Vision Statement

■ Refuge Complex Goals

■ The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process

■ Issues, Concerns and Opportunities

■ Issues Outside the Scope of this EIS

■ Plan Amendment and Revision

John Hollingsworth Memorial Trail Shoreline, Petit Manan Point Division

USFWS photo

Chapter 1
Chapter 1

1-2 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

This draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact

Statement (draft CCP/EIS) for Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge

Complex (Refuge Complex) combines two documents required by Federal

laws: a CCP, required by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57) (Refuge Improvement Act) and an

EIS required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).

The final decision from this document will result in a CCP for the Refuge

Complex. The CCP will guide management decisions and actions on the

Refuge Complex over the next 15 years. It will also be used as a tool to

help the State of Maine natural resource agencies, our conservation partners, Tribal governments local communities, and the public understand

and support Refuge Complex priorities.

This document has six Chapters and eight

Appendices. Chapter 1 is the Purpose of and

Need for the Action and it sets the stage for

Chapters 2 through 4. It...

■ describes the purpose and need for a CCP

for the Refuge Complex;

■ identifies national and regional mandates

and plans that influenced this document;

■ highlights the purposes for which each of

the five refuges in the Refuge Complex were

established and their land acquisition

histories;

■ identifies the status of refuge management

plans;

■ presents the vision and goals for the Refuge Complex;

■ explains the planning process used to develop this document; and,

■ describes the issues and concerns addressed during the planning

process.

Chapter 2, Description of the Alternatives, presents four management

alternatives, including current management and the Service’s Preferred

Alternative, which offer different strategies for meeting goals and objectives and responding to issues.

Chapter 3, Description of the Affected Environment, describes the existing

physical, biological, and human environment.

Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, evaluates the environmental

consequences of implementing each of the four proposed management

alternatives.

Chapter 5, Consultation and Coordination with Others, summarizes public

and partner involvement in the planning process.

Introduction

Petit Manan Island

USFWS photo
Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex Maps

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 1-3

Chapter 6, List of Preparers, credits Service and non-Service contributors.

Eight appendices provide additional documentation and reference information used in compiling this document.

Our proposed action is to develop a CCP for the Refuge Complex that best

achieves the Refuge Complex’s purposes, vision, and goals; contributes to

the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) mission; adheres to

Service policies and mandates; addresses significant issues; and incorporates sound principles of fish and wildlife management.

NEPA regulations require an evaluation of a reasonable range of alternatives, including the proposed action and no action. This draft CCP/EIS

evaluates four alternatives designed to represent different ways of achieving all or most of the criteria noted above. We generated each alternative

assuming its potential to be fully developed into a final CCP. Our analysis

includes the predicted socioeconomic, physical, cultural, and biological

benefits and consequences of implementing each alternative. For the

remainder of this report, the Service’s Preferred Alternative, described in

detail as Alternative B in Chapter 2, defines the proposed action.

Developing a CCP with partner and public involvement is vital to the

future management of every national wildlife refuge. A CCP’s purpose is

to provide the Refuge Complex with strategic management direction for

the next 15 years by:

■ providing a clear statement of desired future conditions for habitat,

wildlife, visitor services, staffing, and facilities;

■ providing State agencies, refuge neighbors, visitors, and partners with a

clear explanation of the reasons for management actions;

■ ensuring refuge management reflects the policies and goals of the

Refuge System and legal mandates;

■ ensuring the “compatibility” of current and future public use;

■ providing long-term continuity and direction for Refuge Complex

management; and,

■ providing direction for staffing, operations, maintenance, and annual

budget requests.

The present need to develop the Refuge Complex CCP is manyfold. First,

the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act requires that all national wildlife

refuges have CCPs in place by 2012 to help fulfill the mission of the

Refuge System. Second, the Refuge Complex lacks a master plan to

accomplish the actions noted above in an environment that has changed

dramatically since the Refuge Complex was first established. For example, its island holdings have more than tripled, significant mainland

acquisition has also occurred, staffing has increased, a second office has

The Purpose of and

Need for the Action
Chapter 1

1-4 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

opened, pressures for increasing public access continue to grow, and new

ecosystem and species plans have been developed with direct bearing on

Refuge Complex management. Third, we also want to evaluate the need

and establish criteria for a proposed new Refuge Complex Headquarters

and Coastal Education Center. Proposed site criteria are presented in

Chapter 3 under Refuge Complex Administration. Fourth, we have developed strong partnerships, vital to our continued successes. We feel it is our

responsibility to clearly develop our priorities through this plan. Finally,

we need a CCP to guide us in future land protection that promotes the

conservation of nationally significant coastal habitats and Federal trust

species.

Our planning process allows Maine State agencies, Tribal governments,

the public, and our partners to actively engage in its development so we

are better able to resolve management issues and concerns. All of these

reasons clearly underscore the need for the strategic direction provided in

a CCP.

The Refuge Complex lies within the Gulf of Maine Watershed in the State

of Maine (Map 1-1). It is comprised of five separate refuges: Cross Island,

Petit Manan, Seal Island, Franklin Island, and Pond Island. Each have

separate establishment histories and refuge purposes as described below,

but are referred to collectively as the “Petit Manan National Wildlife

Refuge Complex.” Seal, Franklin, and Pond islands are single island

refuges. Cross Island Refuge is a six island complex, while Petit Manan

Refuge includes 33 islands and 3 mainland divisions: Petit Manan Point

(2,195 acres), Sawyers Marsh (933 acres), and Gouldsboro Bay (607

acres) divisions. One additional division, Corea Heath (400 acres), is a

pending transfer from the U.S. Navy to Petit Manan Refuge. All totaled,

the Refuge Complex includes approximately 7,961 acres of diverse coastal

Maine habitats including forested and non-forested offshore islands,

coastal salt marsh, open field, and upland

mature spruce-fir forest. The acreage is considered approximate because of the variability in

the accuracy of our sources. We use surveyed

acres, the most accurate, where available;

otherwise, we may use less accurate deed acres

or GIS-generated mapping acres.

The project analysis area includes lands owned

by the Service, as well as lands evaluated for

future Service acquisition. As such, all 42

Refuge Complex islands, the four mainland

divisions, and Machias Seal Island which is

managed by the Service under a Memorandum

of Understanding (MOU) with the State of

Project Area

“...is comprised of five

separate refuges: Cross

Island, Petit Manan, Seal

Island, Franklin Island,

and Pond Island.”

Cross Island with Double Head Shot islands in the background

USFWS photo
Project Area

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 1-5
Chapter 1

1-6 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Maine, are included. In addition, a mainland parcel in the town of Cutler

called “Sprague Neck,” and 151 Maine coastal nesting islands considered

nationally significant, but currently not in long-term protection (see the

Maine Coastal Islands Project discussion below) are included.

Given the geographic distribution of the lands evaluated in this plan, the

project analysis area stretches along the entire 200 air-miles of the Maine

coastline, from approximately the New Hampshire border, downeast to

Cobscook Bay (Refer to Maps 1-2 to 1-12 at end of chapter).

This section presents hierarchically, from the national to the local level,

highlights of Service policy, legal mandates and regulations, and existing

resource plans and conservation initiatives which directly influenced

development of this draft CCP/EIS.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) administers the National

Wildlife Refuge System. The Service is part of the Department of Interior.

Its mission is:

“Working with others, to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife and

plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.”

By law, Congress entrusts national resources to the Service for conservation and protection: migratory birds and fish, Federal-listed endangered

and threatened species, inter-jurisdictional fishes, wetlands, certain marine

mammals, and national wildlife refuges. The Service also enforces Federal

wildlife laws and international treaties on importing and exporting wildlife, assists with state fish and wildlife programs, and helps other countries

develop wildlife conservation programs.

The Service manual contains the standing and continuing directives to

implement its authorities, responsibilities, and activities. This manual can

be accessed at:

http://www.fws.gov.directives/direct.html

Special Service directives which affect the rights of citizens or the authorities of other agencies are published separately in the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) and are not duplicated in the Service manual. Most of

the current regulations that pertain to the Service are issued in 50 CFR

parts 1-99. CFRs can be accessed at:

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/index.html

The National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) is the world’s

largest collection of lands and waters set aside specifically for the conservation of wildlife and ecosystem protection. Over 540 national wildlife

refuges are part of the national network today. They encompass more than

95 million acres of lands and waters in all 50 states and several island

Service Policies,

Legal Mandates, and

National and Regional

Conservation Plans

Guiding the Project

The U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service and its

Mission

The National Wildlife

Refuge System and Its

Mission
Policies, Mandates, and Plans

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 1-7

territories. At least 40 million visitors hunt, fish, observe and photograph

wildlife, or participate in environmental education and interpretive activities on refuges across the nation each year.

In 1997, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act was

passed. This legislation established a unifying mission for the Refuge

System, a new process for determining compatible public use activities on

refuges, and the requirement to prepare CCPs for each refuge. The Refuge

Improvement Act states that first and foremost, the Refuge System must

focus on wildlife conservation. It further states that the Refuge System

mission, coupled with the purpose(s) for which each refuge was established, will provide the principal management direction on that refuge.

The mission of the Refuge System is:

“To administer a national network of lands and waters for the

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

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

the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” (Refuge

Improvement Act; Public Law 105-57)

The Refuge Improvement Act declares that all existing or proposed refuge

uses must be “compatible” with the refuge’s purpose and consistent with

public safety. “Compatibility” is determined by the refuge manager after

evaluating an activity’s potential effect on refuge resources and determining it supports the Refuge System mission and does not interfere with or

detract from the refuge purposes and goals. Six wildlife-dependent public

uses were designated in the legislation to receive enhanced consideration

on refuges and in CCPs. The six priority uses are: hunting, fishing, environmental education and interpretation, and wildlife observation and

photography.

The Refuge System manual provides a central reference for current policy

governing the operation and management of the Refuge System not

covered by the Service manual, including technical information on implementing refuge polices and guidelines. This manual can be reviewed at

Refuge Headquarters.

Fulfilling the Promise

This report on the National Wildlife Refuge System is the culmination of a

yearlong process involving teams of Service employees who examined the

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

Leadership. The report was the result of the first-ever System Conference

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

manager in the country, other Service employees, and scores of conservation organizations. The heart of the report is the collection of vision

statements and 42 recommendations. Many “Promises Teams” have been

formed to develop strategies for implementing the recommendations. We

utilized information from such teams as Wildlife and Habitat Goals and
Chapter 1

1-8 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Objectives, Strategic Growth of the Refuge System, Invasive Species, and

Inventory and Monitoring. Their recommendations helped guide the

development of goals, strategies and actions in this draft CCP/EIS.

While Service and Refuge System policy and each refuge’s purpose provide

the foundation for management, national wildlife refuges are administered

consistent with a variety of other Federal laws, executive orders, treaties,

interstate compacts, and regulations pertaining to the conservation and

protection of natural and cultural resources. The Digest of Federal

Resource Laws of Interest to the USFWS lists them and can be accessed at:

http://laws.fws.gov/lawsdigest/indx.html

Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, specifically evaluates compliance with the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, the National Historic

Preservation Act, the Archeological Resources Protection Act, and the

Endangered Species Act. This draft CCP/EIS is written to fulfill compliance with NEPA.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP; update 1998)

This plan outlines the strategy among the United States, Canada, and

Mexico to restore waterfowl populations through habitat protection,

restoration, and enhancement. Implementation of this plan is accomplished at the regional level within 14 habitat “Joint Venture” partnerships

and 3 species Joint Ventures: Arctic goose, black duck, and sea duck. Our

project area lies within the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture which includes all

the Atlantic Flyway states from Maine to Florida and Puerto Rico. Six

priority focus areas are identified for Maine. Five of these areas are coastal

and consist of 51,831 acres of wetlands and associated uplands in need of

protection and management. Most of the Refuge Complex mainland lies in

the Downeast Focus Area. A map of focus areas in Maine can be viewed at:

http://www.acjv.org

The waterfowl goal for the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture is to:

“Protect and manage priority wetland habitats for migration, wintering,

and production of waterfowl, with special consideration to black ducks, and

to benefit other wildlife in the joint venture area.”

Both the Black Duck and Sea Duck joint venture plans are also relevant to

our project. Black ducks utilize the Refuge Complex during fall migration,

and many sea duck species winter in Maine’s coastal waters. Specifically,

many islands in our project area are important common eider nesting sites.

We used these plans as we developed goals and objectives for waterfowl

and their habitats, and for land protection. The 1998 update for the North

American Waterfowl plan can be accessed at:

http://northamerican.fws.gov/NAWMP/nawmphp.htm

Other Legal Mandates

National and Regional

Plans and Conservation

Initiatives Guiding

Project
Policies, Mandates, and Plans

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 1-9

The 2003 Update to the NAWMP will be available in early 2004 at:

http://birdhabitat.fws.gov/NAWMP/nawmphp.htm

The Black Duck Joint Venture Plan (Final Draft - Strategic Plan, April

1993) can be accessed at:

http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bdjv/bdjvback.htm

The SeaDuck Joint Venture can be accessed at:

http://seaduckjv.org

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (Version 1, 2002)

This plan is an independent partnership among individuals and institutions

with interest and responsibility for conserving waterbirds and their habitats. The plan is just one element of this multifaceted conservation program. The primary goal of the plan is to ensure the distribution, diversity,

and abundance of populations and habitats of breeding, migratory, and

non-breeding waterbirds are sustained or restored throughout the lands

and waters of North America, Central America, and the Caribbean. The

plan provides a framework for conserving and managing colonially nesting water-dependent birds. In addition, it will facilitate continent-wide

planning and monitoring, national- state-provincial conservation action,

regional coordination, and local habitat protection and management.

Regional planning information is being prepared for the Mid-Atlantic

New England Working Group.

We used the plan in the development of objectives, actions and strategies

for protecting and managing waterbirds. This plan can be accessed at:

http://www.nawcp.org

Additional information is available at the following web site:

http://birds.fws.gov/regionalplanninginternal/MANEM/

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (2001 Update) and Northern Atlantic

Regional Shorebird Plan (Draft 2002)

This plan is a partnership effort being undertaken throughout the United

States to ensure that stable and self-sustaining populations of all shorebird

species are restored and protected. Collaborators include local, state, and

Federal agencies, non-governmental organizations, business-related

sectors, researchers, educators, and policy makers. The plan was closely

coordinated with NAWMP and Joint Venture professionals, as well as the

Partners In Flight and North American Waterbird Plan teams as they

concurrently developed their revised national plans. These experts helped

set conservation goals for each region of the country, identified critical

habitat and research needs, and proposed education and outreach programs to increase awareness of shorebirds and the threats they face. The

partnerships responsible for development of the plan are remaining
Chapter 1

1-10 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

active and are working to improve and implement the plan’s many

recommendations.

The U.S. Shorebird Plan identifies three primary objectives:

1. Development of a standardized, scientifically-sound system for

monitoring and studying shorebird populations that will provide

practical information to researchers and land managers for shorebird

habitat conservation;

2. Identification of the principles and practices upon which local, regional

and national management plans can effectively integrate shorebird

habitat conservation with multiple species strategies;

3. Design of an integrated strategy for increasing public awareness and

information concerning wetlands and shorebirds.

Regional plans, such as the North Atlantic Regional Shorebird Plan, are

being developed as part of the overall strategy. The North Atlantic Plan is

in draft, but provides detailed information on shorebird species of high

conservation concern within the region. Once completed, the plan will

enhance shorebird diversity and individual species’ populations through

regional population, habitat, research, and education goals and objectives,

and identifying specific management needs and projects to implement.

We used this regional plan in developing our Species of Concern List

(Appendix B). The national plan can be accessed at:

http://shorebirdplan.fws.gov/USShorebird.htm

The website for accessing the regional plan is:

http://shorebirdplan.fws.gov/RegionalShorebird/RegionalPlans.htm

Regional Wetlands Concept Plan – Emergency Wetlands Resources Act

(1990)

In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act to

promote the conservation of our nation’s wetlands. The act directed the

Department of Interior to develop a National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan identifying the location and types of wetlands that should receive

priority attention for acquisition by Federal and state agencies using Land

and Water Conservation Fund appropriations. In 1990, the Service’s

Northeast Region completed a Regional Wetlands Concept Plan to provide

more specific information about wetlands resources in the Northeast. A

total of 850 wetland sites were identified for protection because of their

value, scarcity, and vulnerability. In Maine, 71 wetland sites were identified, with 34 sites (43,445 acres) located within 10 miles of the coastline.

We used this information as we developed our land protection strategies.
Policies, Mandates, and Plans

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 1-11

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

This revised roseate tern (Sterna dougallii) recovery plan was completed

in 1998. The plan summarizes life history, ecology, population status, and

known threats to the recovery of this Federal-listed endangered species.

The following recovery objectives were established:

Primary objective: To increase the Northeast nesting population of

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

include at least six large colonies with high productivity within the species

current geographic distribution.

Secondary objectives:

1. To expand the number of roseate tern breeding colonies to 30 or more

sites; and,

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

current range.

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

recovery objectives. We used this plan as we developed management goals

and objectives for roseate tern.

Roseate tern with fish

Photo courtesy of Gil Lopez-Espina
Chapter 1

1-12 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (1983)

This plan describes actions believed necessary to assure the survival and

recovery of bald eagles in the 24 states encompassed by the plan. The

primary objective is to reestablish self-sustaining populations of bald

eagles throughout the Northern States Region. The initial tentative goal is

to have 1,200 occupied breeding areas distributed over a minimum of 16

states with an average annual productivity of at least 1.0 young per

occupied nest. Specific recovery tasks fall into four general categories:

1. Determine current population and habitat status;

2. Determine minimum population and habitat needed to achieve

recovery;

3. Protect, enhance, and increase bald eagle populations and habitats; and

4. Establish and implement a coordination system for information and

communication.

A proposal to de-list the bald eagle nationally

is pending, but the Service remains concerned

with permanent habitat protection.

We utilized this plan as we developed goals

and objectives and our land acquisition proposal.

Partners In Flight Landbird Conservation Plans

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

government agencies, conservation organizations, academic institutions, private industry,

and other citizens dedicated to reversing the

population declines of bird species and “keeping common birds common.” The foundation

of PIF’s long-term strategy for bird conservation is a series of scientifically-based bird

conservation plans, using physiographic

provinces as the planning units. There are two

physiographic plans that cover our Project

Area, and they are described in more detail

below.

The goal of each PIF plan is to ensure longterm maintenance of healthy populations of

native birds, primarily non-game birds. Within

each physiographic area, the plans rank bird

species according to their conservation

priority, describe desired habitat conditions,

develop biological objectives, and recommend

Bald eagle

USFWS photo
Policies, Mandates, and Plans

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 1-13

conservation measures. Habitat loss, population trends, and vulnerability

of a species and its habitats to regional and local threats all factor into the

priority ranking. Many of the top ranked species in the two plans below

either breed or migrate through the Refuge Complex.

At this writing, final plans are not yet available; however, we referenced

the draft plans as we developed habitat goals and objectives. These plans

can be accessed at:

http://www.partnersinflight.org

Physiographic Area 27 - Northern New England (Draft October 2000)

The scope of this plan covers some of our inland Refuge Complex lands.

Northern hardwood and mixed forest objectives emphasize maintaining

stable populations of wood thrush, black-throated blue warbler, Canada

warbler, northern goshawk, sharp-shinned hawk, and Cooper’s hawk. The

plan assumes that maintaining habitat for species such as goshawk, sharpshinned and Coopers hawks, which typically have larger home ranges,

will adequately provide habitat for most other landbirds of conservation

concern dependent on this forest type.

Objectives for early successional forest/edge habitat emphasize goldenwinged warbler, chestnut-sided warbler, and American woodcock. Objectives for mature conifer (spruce-fir) forest habitat emphasize Blackburnian

warbler, bay-breasted warbler, and black-backed woodpecker.

Physiographic Area 28 - Eastern Spruce-Hardwood Forest (Draft June 2000)

The scope of this plan covers most of the Refuge Complex’s mainland and

all the islands. Maritime marsh and estuary objectives in this plan emphasize maintaining stable populations of Nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrow and

American black duck. Northern hardwood and mixed forest objectives

emphasize maintaining stable populations of Canada and black-throated

blue warbler.

Mature conifer (spruce-fir) forest objectives emphasize maintaining stable

populations of black-throated green, Northern parula, and Blackburnian

warbler; spruce grouse; olive-sided flycatcher; boreal chickadee; pine

grosbeak; and red crossbill. Objectives for early successional forest/edge

habitat emphasize species such as American woodcock, olive-sided

flycatcher, and Nashville and chestnut-sided warbler. Objectives for

freshwater emphasize the American black duck.

Tern Management Plan (June 2002)

The Tern Management Plan provides historic background, a review of

factors limiting populations, life history information, and techniques for

managing and monitoring the tern species nesting from New York to

Newfoundland. The plan also identifies research needs and assesses the size

and distribution of tern populations within the region. Primarily, it focuses on

coastal populations of common, Arctic, roseate, and least terns. The document
Chapter 1

1-14 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

provides specific management techniques to help achieve the goals set forth in

several previous planning approaches that have been developed across the

Northeast region. We used this plan in developing our tern objectives and

strategies.

Birds of Conservation Concern 2002 Report and the Atlantic Northern Forest

Bird Conservation Region Blueprint (draft 2003)

This report was developed by the Service in consultation with the leaders

of ongoing bird conservation initiatives and partnerships such as Partners

In Flight, the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, and the U.S.

Shorebird Conservation Plan. It fulfills the mandate of the 1988 amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 (100 Public Law

100-653, Title VIII) requiring the Secretary of the Interior, through the

Service, to “identify species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory

nongame birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to

become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.” The report is

actually a series of 45 lists that identifies bird

species of conservation concern at national,

regional, and landscape scales. Essentially,

these are the birds deemed to be the highest

priority for conservation action. It includes a

principal national list, seven regional lists

corresponding to the Service’s seven regional

administrative units, and species lists for each

of the 37 Bird Conservation Regions in the

U.S. designated and endorsed by the North

American Bird Conservation Initiative

(NABCI)

These bird conservation regions are ecologically-based units, as defined

by NABCI for planning, implementing, and evaluating bird conservation

efforts. Petit Manan Refuge Complex lies in the Atlantic Northern Forest

Bird Conservation Region (BCR). In this BCR, sixteen bird species were

listed. A draft blueprint for this region presents a strategic design of the

key components to implement in order to maintain healthy populations of

birds native to the BCR. Specifically, the blueprint establishes a series of

goals for the partnership to help move towards its vision of sustained bird

populations; it presents the biological foundation upon which recommendations are based; and it lays out a framework for implementing and

evaluating the recommended actions.

It is hoped that these regional and national reports will stimulate coordinated efforts by Federal, state, and private agencies to develop and

implement integrated approaches for the conservation and management of

these birds deemed to be in the most need of conservation action.

Common tern chick

Photo courtesy of Gil Lopez-Espina
Policies, Mandates, and Plans

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 1-15

We considered each of these species in developing our Species of Management Concern List (Appendix B) and to help us focus our habitat

objectives, actions and strategies.

Gulf of Maine Rivers Ecosystem Plan (1994)

Implementing an ecosystem approach to resource management is one of

the Service’s national priorities. Nationally, and within the last decade, the

Service has initiated new partnerships with private landowners, State and

Federal agencies, corporations, conservation groups, and volunteers to form

52 ecosystem or ecoregional teams across the country, typically using

large river watersheds to define ecosystems. Each team works on developing goals and priorities for research and management within their ecoregion.

The Gulf of Maine Ecosystem team, composed of Service personnel and

representatives from several State natural resource agencies, developed a

Priority Resources Plan (September 1994) for this ecoregion which is

depicted on Map 1-1. The following seven priorities were identified in the

plan, each involving numerous action strategies:

1. Recover populations and habitats of the following endangered/

threatened species: Karner blue butterfly, bald eagle, piping plover,

roseate tern, and Plymouth redbelly turtle.

2. Restore, protect and enhance habitats for migratory birds, anadromous

fishes and listed/candidate species in the following watersheds:

Penobscot River, Kennebec/Androscoggin River.

3. Restore, protect and enhance coastal habitats for Federal trust resources

of concern, (for example: common loon, Atlantic puffin, common eider,

osprey, terns, black duck, American woodcock, bald eagle, piping

plover, American shad, river herring, and Atlantic salmon) in the

following areas: Plum Island Sound, Great Bay, Southern Maine (York

to Cape Elizabeth), Mid-Coast Maine (Casco Bay to Muscongus Bay),

Eastern Maine (Schoodic to Cutler), and Cobscook Bay.

4 Restore, protect and enhance populations of migratory bird species of

special emphasis, for example: common loon, Atlantic puffin, Arctic

tern, common eider, common tern, harlequin duck, least tern, black

duck, and American woodcock.

5. Rebuild American shad and river herring populations in the following

rivers: Merrimack, Saco, Kennebec/Androscoggin, Penobscot, and St.

Croix.

6. Restore and rehabilitate Atlantic salmon populations in the following

rivers: St. Croix, Dennys, Pleasant, East Machias, Machias,

Narraguagus, Ducktrap, Sheepscot, and Penobscot.

7. Manage Service lands to protect, enhance, and restore native

communities to maintain biodiversity.
Chapter 1

1-16 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Maine Coastal Nesting Islands Project

The Maine Coastal Nesting Islands Project is a partnership established to

identify and protect seabird, wading bird, and eagle nesting habitat on

Maine’s coastal islands. The partnership is sponsored by the Service’s Gulf

of Maine Coastal Program and the Refuge Complex. Federal, State, and

non-governmental organization biologists share data on historic and active

seabird, wading bird and eagle nesting sites and the ownership status of

nesting islands. Partners include MDIFW, Maine Coast Heritage Trust,

The Nature Conservancy (Maine Chapter), National Fish and Wildlife

Foundation, Maine State Planning Office’s Coastal Program and Land For

Maine’s Future Program, local land trusts, National Audubon Society, and

private land owners. Information is shared among these entities on an

annual basis. Approximately every three years, data from Maine’s 4,617

coastal islands is analyzed to determine species distribution and population trends and to update island protection status.

The most recent analysis used data from 2002. Six hundred and sixteen

islands were determined to have nesting populations of seabirds, wading

birds, or bald eagles, or a combination of the

three. Of these 616 islands, 377 were determined to be “nationally significant” because

they met one or more of the following criteria

established by the partnership:

■ One percent or more of the State population

of a seabird species – common, roseate, or

Arctic tern; Atlantic puffin; razorbill; black

guillemot; black-backed, herring, or

laughing gull; common eider; great or

double-crested cormorant; or Leach’s stormpetrel – nests on the island; or

■ One percent or more of the State population

of a wading bird species – great blue heron,

black-crowned night heron, snowy egret,

glossy ibis, little blue heron, tri-colored

heron, or cattle egret – nests on the island;

or

■ Federal-listed (endangered) roseate terns

nest, or historically nested, on the island; or

■ Federal-listed (threatened) bald eagles have

productively nested on the island for several

years (on larger islands only the immediate

area around the nesting site, approximately

125 acres, is considered nationally

significant); or

Atlantic puffin

USFWS photo
Policies, Mandates, and Plans

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 1-17

■ the island population of any one nesting seabird species does not meet

the 1% criteria, but it is important because it supports a diverse

population of seabird species, including:

• four or more seabird species nest on the island; or

• three species nest on the island, at least one of which represents

>0.5% of the statewide nesting population; or

• the island has important seabird, wading bird, or eagle nesting

habitat based on an annual biological review of the data.

The 377 nationally significant coastal nesting islands identified represent

8% of the total number of Maine islands and less than 4% of the total island

acreage. They include 170 islands with nesting seabirds present (including

five with roseate terns). Many of these species spend the majority of the

year at sea and occur nowhere else in the United States. Twenty islands

have nesting wading birds present, and 119 islands support bald eagle nesting.

The current level of protection afforded these 377 nationally significant

coastal nesting islands falls into three categories:

A.Two hundred twenty-six (226) have permanent or long-term protection.

The majority are managed by either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

or the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, both of

whom have the legislative authority and responsibility to maintain and

enhance populations of seabirds, wading birds, and eagles. This category

also includes three islands managed by the National Audubon Society,

with a primary objective of protecting and restoring seabird populations.

B.Twenty-five (25) are in Federal, municipal, or private ownership and

presently have some degree of protection but may not be permanently

protected or managed to maintain and enhance populations of seabirds,

wading birds, or eagles; and

C.One hundred twenty-six (126) are in private ownership and lack

permanent or long-term protection and/or management to maintain and

enhance seabird, wading bird, or eagle populations.

We used the information from this project to develop our Land Protection

Plan for the Refuge Complex (Appendix A). Our primary focus for acquisition is on nationally significant islands in categories B and C.

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Species Assessments

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) is developing species assessments and management plans for more than 70 species

and species groups within the state. The plans will cover all hunted, trapped,

and threatened and endangered species, as well as several additional

species of management concern. The purpose of these assessments is to
Chapter 1

1-18 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

assemble the most current information and professional judgements

available into one document. Each plan serves as a basis for selecting

management goals, objectives, and strategies over a 15-year time-frame,

with abbreviated updates compiled every five years. At least 10 completed

assessments relate to seabirds, waterbirds, or migratory landbirds of

interest to the Refuge Complex. We used these plans in developing our

Species and Habitats of Management Concern List (Appendix B) and our

management objectives and strategies.

As described above under the section titled “Project Area”, Petit Manan

Refuge Complex spans the entire Maine coastline. It includes lands in the

towns of Cutler, Machiasport, Jonesport, Roque Bluffs, Addison, Milbridge,

and Steuben in Washington County; the towns of Gouldsboro, Winter Harbor,

Swan’s Island, Tremont in Hancock County; the towns of Vinalhaven,

Saint George, and Friendship in Knox County; the towns of Boothbay,

South Bristol, and Southport in Lincoln County; the town of Phippsburg in

Sagadahoc County; the town of Harpswell in Cumberland County; and the

town of Kittery in York County. The Refuge Complex Headquarters is

currently located in Milbridge, with a staffed, satellite office in Rockport.

The Service has acquired lands for the refuges in the Refuge Complex

through a variety of acquisition methods. These include gifts from private

individuals, land trusts, statewide and national conservation groups, and

transfers of title from the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Navy. In addition,

when funds are available, we have purchased through fee title acquisition

or conservation easement, important mainland and coastal nesting islands.

All acquisitions have been from willing sellers at market value. Most of

the land within our approved acquisition boundary has been acquired.

Those lands not yet acquired within our approved boundary, and lands we

propose for an expansion of the current boundary, are described in our

Land Protection Plan (Appendix A).

Historically, our land acquisition funds come from two sources: the Land

and Water Conservation Fund, appropriated annually by Congress, and the

Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, which is replenished through the sale

of Federal duck stamps. Annual expenditures for the Refuge Complex’s

land acquisition program have recently averaged approximately $1 million/year.

The rate of our coastal island acquisition began a steady increase in 1993, and

since that time, the Service has acquired an interest in 31 islands. All of these

have become part of Petit Manan Refuge, although they may lie closer to Rachel

Carson or Moosehorn refuges. This allows us to concentrate our expertise and

the logistical resources needed to manage seabirds on off-shore islands.

The refuge purposes and land acquisition history for each of the five

refuges in the Refuge Complex are presented below. All acreages presented are rounded to the nearest whole number and represent U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) land acres above the mean high water mark.

Refuge Purposes and

Land Acquisition

History
Refuge Purposes and Land Acquisition History

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 1-19

This refuge is 65 acres and was established in 1972 because of its

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

program.” It was

established under

authority of 16 U.S.C.

667b, an Act

Authorizing the

Transfer of Certain

Real Property for

Wildlife or Other

Purposes, 16

U.S.C.667b-667d, as

amended. It was

acquired in transfer

from the U.S. Navy.

This refuge is 12 acres and was established in 1973 because of its “...particular

value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program.” It

was established under authority of 16 U.S.C. 667b, an Act Authorizing the

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife or Other Purposes, 16 U.S.C.667b667b, as amended. It was acquired in transfer from the U.S. Coast Guard.

This refuge is 10 acres and was established in 1973 because of its “...particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management

program.” It was established under authority of 16 U.S.C. 667b, an Act

Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife or Other

Purposes, 16 U.S.C.667b-667d, as amended. It was acquired in transfer

from the U.S. Coast Guard.

This refuge is currently 5,771 acres and consists of 33 islands and three

mainland divisions. The fourth mainland division, Corea Heath, is a

pending U.S. Department of Navy transfer. The Petit Manan National

Wildlife Refuge was originally established in 1974 “...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or any other management purposes, for migratory birds.” It

was established under authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act,

16 U.S.C. 715d. In addition to the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, the

succession of islands and mainland parcels acquired after 1974 were

acquired with one or more of the following purposes:

“...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-1); or

“...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)

Seal Island National

Wildlife Refuge

Franklin Island National

Wildlife Refuge

Pond Island National

Wildlife Refuge

Petit Manan National

Wildlife Refuge

Aerial view of Seal Island

USFWS photo
Chapter 1

1-20 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

“...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 Resource Act of 1986, 16 U.S.C. 3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583).

Its acquisition history is described in Table 1-1.

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

use as an inviolate sanctuary, or any other management purposes, for

migratory birds.” It was established under authority of the Migratory Bird

Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715d. Its acquisition history is described in

Table 1-2.

The Service Manual, Part 602, Chapter 4 (Refuge Planning Policy) lists

over 25 step-down management plans that are generally required on

refuges. These plans contain specific strategies and implementation

schedules for achieving refuge goals and objectives. Some plans require

annual revisions, others are on a 5-to-10-year revision schedule. Some

require additional NEPA analysis, public involvement, and compatibility

determinations before they can be implemented. Below we provide the

current status of step-down plans needed for the Refuge Complex. Those

that are currently up-to-date are incorporated by reference into this draft

CCP/EIS plan. Additional step-down plans needed for the Refuge Complex are further identified in Chapter 2.

These step-down plans are current and up-to-date:

■ Fire Management Plan (includes prescribed fire and wildfire

management direction; annual burn plans are also completed), 2002

■ Continuity of Operations Plan, 1999

■ Safety Program and Operations Plan, 2000

■ Hunt Plan, 2001

These step-down plans are being prepared or are in draft form:

■ Habitat and Species Inventory and Monitoring Plan (HSIMP)

■ Land Protection Plan (LPP)

These step-down plans will need to be completed and are scheduled in

Chapter 2:

■ Habitat Management Plan (HMP; highest priority)

■ Visitor Services Plan

■ Law Enforcement Plan

■ Invasive Species Management Plan

■ Cultural Resources Management Plan

Cross Island National

Wildlife Refuge

Existing Refuge

Operational Plans

(“Step-down” plans)
Refuge Purposes and Land Acquisition History

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 1-21

Table 1-2 History of acquisition at Cross Island Refuge

Calendar 

Year Acres* Acquisition Method Parcel Acquired 

1980 1,538 donation of 6 islands Cross Is (portion of); Old Man, Mink, Outer and 

Inner Double Head Shot, Scotch Is. 

1986 165 land exchange for tract on island Cross Is (portion of) 

* Island acres are approximate, as many were not surveyed, but are based on original deed acres or GIS mapping. 

Table 1-1 History of acquisition at Petit Manan Refuge 

Calendar 

Year* Acres** Acquisition Method Parcel Acquired 

1974 10 transfer of island from Coast Guard Petit Manan Is. 

1976 2,166 3 donations, 2 fee purchases, and 1 transfer; 

includes both islands and mainland 

Petit Manan Pt Div. 

1978 5 1 island transfer from Coast Guard Little Nash Is (portion of) 

1979 1,130 1 donation of an island Bois Bubert Is (portion of) 

1987 25 1 land exchange for tract on mainland Bois Bubert Is (portion of) 

1992 13 1 donation of tract on mainland Sawyers Marsh Division (portion of) 

1993 33 2 fee purchases; 1 island, and one tract on 

mainland 

Bois Bubert Is (portion of) 

1994 252 3 donations and 3 fee purchase; includes 

both islands and mainland 

Metinic (portion of), E&W Barge, Bar, Ship 

and Trumpet Is; Goulds. Bay Div (portion of) 

1995 322 2 donations and 7 fee purchase; includes 

both islands and mainland 

Metinic (portion of), Halifax, Outer White, Lt 

Roberts, Roberts, Lt Thrumcap Is; Goulds. 

Bay Div (portion of) 

1996 31 2 donations and 1 fee purchase; includes 

both mainland and islands 

Metinic (portions of), and Abbot, Sally Is 

1997 12 2 fee purchases of islands Bois Bubert Is (portion of); E Brothers Is 

1998 1008 2 donations and 4 fee purchases; includes 

both islands and mainland, and 2 

conservation easements 

Upper Flag, John=s Is; Sawyers Marsh Div 

(portion of), and Goulds. Bay Div (portion of); 

Inner White Is (easement) and Lower Mark Is 

(easement) 

1999 187 4 islands transferred from Coast Guard, and 3 

fee purchases of islands 

Ram, Lt. Libby, Inner Sand, Matinicus Rock, 

Two Bush, Outer Heron Is, and Egg Rock 

2000 39 3 fee purchases; includes both island and 

mainland 

Schoppee and Lt Marshall Is; Goulds. Bay Div 

(portion of) 

2001 366 2 fee purchases; includes both islands and 

mainland, and 1 conservation easement on 

an island 

Crane Is (easement); Sawyers Marsh and 

Goulds. Bay Div (portions of) 

2002 60 2 conservation easements on islands Smuttynose and Malaga Is (easements) 

* Acquisition is ongoing in 2003; check with the Refuge Headquarters for latest island puchases. 

** Island acres are approximate, as many were not surveyed, but are based on original deed acres or GIS mapping. 
Chapter 1

1-22 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Very early in our planning process our team developed this vision statement

to provide a guiding philosophy and sense of purpose for our planning effort.

“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 goals were developed after consideration of our refuge purposes,

the Service and Refuge System missions, our vision, and the mandates,

plans, and conservation initiatives described above. They are intentionally

broad, descriptive statements of purpose. They highlight elements of our

vision statement that are emphasized in future refuge management. The

biological goals take precedence, in particular Goal 5, but otherwise, the

goals are not presented in a particular order.

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

quality habitat for migratory birds.

Goal 2: Maintain high quality wetland communities on the Refuge Complex’s

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 the Refuge Complex’s islands to sustain high quality habitat

for nesting bald eagles and migratory songbirds and raptors, and to protect

rare plant sites.

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

Complex’s islands to benefit nesting and migrating shorebirds and waterfowl.

Goal 5: Protect and restore nesting seabird populations on the Refuge

Complex’s islands to contribute to regional and international seabird

conservation goals.

Goal 6: Promote 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.

Refuge Complex

Vision Statement

Refuge Complex

Goals
Vision, Goals, and Planning Process

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 1-23

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

State, local, and Tribal representatives, and other organizations throughout

coastal Maine to further the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge

System.

In 1993, the Service began to evaluate the need for additional protection

of Maine coastal nesting islands. In 1995, the Service’s plans to prepare an

EIS to study the protection of significant seabird, wading bird, and eagle

nesting islands on Maine’s coast was officially announced through a

Federal Register Notice of Intent.

Throughout 1995, four public forums and six public scoping meetings

were held in Ellsworth, Machias, Owls Head, Rockport, Brunswick,

Freeport, Wells, and Augusta, Maine. The locations, dates, and times for

these meetings were announced in local newspapers, as well as through

special mailings. Over 250 people attended the public forums, co-sponsored by the Service and 33 additional groups interested in promoting

protection of coastal islands. More than 60 people attended the scoping

meetings, the purpose of which was to let people know what the Service

was doing and share what we have learned about

coastal nesting island wildlife and their habitats.

Also during 1995, over 1,100 copies of an Issues

Workbook were distributed. These workbooks

asked people to share what they valued most

about the islands, their vision for island protection in the future and the Service’s role in that

future, and any other island issues they wanted to

raise. One hundred and forty copies of the workbooks were returned to us. We summarized the

information and shared the results in a Project

Update newsletter in May 1996.

Also in May 1996, the Service held a two-day

facilitated workshop at the Bar Harbor Inn in Bar

Harbor, Maine. The 24 participants included

island owners, local land trusts, conservation

organizations, town officials, sea kayaking

companies, tour boat operators, representatives

from the aquaculture industry, property rights

supporters, and State and Federal agency representatives. The participants discussed the information gathered on seabird, wading bird, and

eagle populations and island ownerships, as well

as the results of the workbook. Work groups were

formed to identify potential management actions

and strategies available for protecting, managing,

The Comprehensive

Conservation

Planning Process

An Early Planning Effort

A view from the John Hollingsworth Memorial Trail, Petit

Manan Point Division

Myer Bornstein, SEMASS Photos
Chapter 1

1-24 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

and restoring coastal nesting islands, and to establish a consensus action

plan that workshop participants could support.

During 1997 and 1998 further planning on this project was delayed pending passage of the Refuge Improvement Act and new Service planning

policy. During this time, we determined that the focus of our planning

should be expanded to include not only Refuge Complex acquisition of

Maine coastal nesting islands, but all other aspects of refuge management

as well. This expanded effort would better comply with the intent of the

new Service planning policy.

The planning process was restarted in the summer of 1999, and a new

planning team was formed to produce a draft CCP/EIS. Our core planning

team consists of the Refuge Complex staff, Regional Office planning,

visitor services, and cultural resources staff, and one staff from the Maine

Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). We regularly

consult with the Regional Refuge Biological Program staff, Migratory

Bird program staff, Gulf of Maine Program Ecological Services staff, and

program specialists with MDIFW.

Service planning policy establishes an eight-step process (Figure 1-1)

which we followed in developing this draft CCP/EIS. Individual steps are

described in detail in the planning policy and CCP training materials. As

part of “Step A: Preplanning,” we developed a preliminary Refuge Complex vision statement and complex-wide goals and identified issues and

management concerns. We reviewed the 1995 list of issues and concerns

for the project, expanded them to include issues on existing refuge lands,

and prepared to gather additional comments from the public. The revised

list of issues and concerns is presented below.

During this step, we also initiated a wilderness review of existing Refuge

Complex lands. This review is the process we use to determine if we

should recommend Refuge System lands and waters to Congress for

wilderness designation. The wilderness review process consists of three

phases: (1) inventory, (2) study, (3) recommendation. Our Refuge

Planning Policy requires us to conduct a wilderness review concurrent

with the CCP process and incorporate the summary of the review into the

CCP (602 FW 3.4 C. 1(c). The process we followed for this CCP is described in Appendix D.

Next, we completed “Step B: Initiate Public Involvement and Scoping,”

which provided an opportunity for the public to critique, or add to, the

vision, goals, and issues for the Refuge Complex. We held public meetings and open houses in Augusta, Milbridge, and Rockport in 2000. A

newsletter shared the comments from the open houses with the people on

our mailing list.

Our Recent Planning

Effort
Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 1-25

Following the public meetings, the planning team met a few times, and

individual members drafted and refined elements of our management

alternatives. Our next newsletter, published at the end of 2001, shared our

draft alternatives with the public. At publication, we presented five management alternatives, but after further analysis, we determined that one of

the alternatives was not significantly different than the others. All the

significant components of this alternative were included in at least one of

the other four alternatives. Therefore, we reduced our analysis to four

alternatives.

During 2002, we concentrated on completing the analysis for “Chapter 2:

Alternatives” and “Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences.”

Figure 1-1 Steps in the

comprehensive conservation

planning process and their

relationship to National

Environmental Policy Act

compliance
Chapter 1

1-26 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

From the Issues Workbook, public and focus group meetings, and planning team discussions, we developed a list of issues, opportunities, or any

other item requiring a management decision. We concentrated further on

the issues, as these drive the analysis and comparison of alternatives.

Issues were sorted into three categories:

1. Significant issues – these issues formed the basis for the development

and comparison of different management alternatives. A range of

opinions on how to resolve these significant issues and meet objectives

generated the different alternatives presented in Chapter 2. These issues

are are resolved differently among the alternatives. Significant issues

are discussed in detail below.

2. Other issues to address - these issues and management concerns are also

presented in Chapter 2, but are not considered “significant.” These

issues are often resolved in a similar manner in all of the alternatives.

3. Issues and concerns outside the scope of this EIS – these issues do not

fall within the scope of the purpose of and need for action as we

described for this CCP/EIS. They are identified below, but will not be

further addressed in this document.

The following issues were generated by the planning team or brought to

our attention by our State or other partners, or the public, during scoping

activities. These issues generated a wide range of opinions including those

in support of, to those fully against the particular activity involved. The

issues matrix in Chapter 2 shows how we deal with these issues through

actions and strategies in the four alternatives. We provide a summary of

the different opinions we heard in each discussion of significant issues

below.

1. How will we protect the coastal nesting islands, given the finite

number of islands suitable for seabird, wading bird, and eagle nesting?

There are a limited number of coastal nesting islands providing seabird,

wading bird and eagle nesting habitat. Of the more than 4,617 Maine

coastal islands, 377 are considered to be nationally significant nesting

islands. Only 226 of these nationally significant islands are currently

protected by either the Service, MDIFW, or the National Audubon Society,

all of whom have either legislative authority or a management mission to

maintain and enhance seabird, wading bird, or eagle nesting habitats. Each

of these entities has ongoing seabird restoration projects which are very

expensive and challenging to undertake.

Many people have expressed concern about the remaining 151 nationally

significant nesting islands, which do not have permanent, long-term

protection and are subject to development pressures; pressures which

continue to increase with the population on Maine’s coastal islands. Some

noted that the obvious threat is the direct loss of nesting habitat when

Significant Issues

Issues, Concerns,

and Opportunities
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 1-27

construction occurs. They commented that residential development near

nesting areas can indirectly result in disturbances during construction

activities and from the influx of summer residents and their pets. Other

concerns include the removal of potential bald eagle nesting trees through

logging, and the harvest of other native vegetation or overgrazing by

domestic animals which alters vegetation so it is no longer desirable to

nesting seabirds.

On the other hand, we heard from some private island owners who feel

they manage their islands with a conservation ethic and achieve the desirable habitat objectives. Some expressed the opinion that we “should just

let nature take its course” and not intervene. Other people fear Federal

ownership will result in a greatly diminished local voice in how the

islands are used, and they expect the result will be additional restrictions

on traditional activities on or near the islands. These respondents believe

the Service will not be responsive to local concerns and that the islands

will no longer be subject to local influences. Some expressed the opinion

that market forces should dictate the status of land protection. Others

recommended that either State agencies or national and local conservation

organizations take the lead in land protection, and that the Service act only

in a support role. Still others suggested that the Service pursue conservation easements instead of fee simple purchases as a means of protection.

In their opinions, this would lessen the impact on local property tax revenues.

The alternatives evaluate different levels of land protection, including the

number of islands recommended for Service acquisition.

2. How will we deal with increased recreational and commercial uses

promoted by others on or near coastal nesting islands?

Tourism is an important component of the State and local economies,

providing many seasonal jobs, and affecting many industry sectors. A

great deal of revenue is generated from the millions of visitors who come

to enjoy coastal Maine in the summer. The coastal

nesting islands provide an important niche in the

“eco-tourism” industry, at least partly because of

the wildlife viewing opportunities they provide.

Commercially provided seabird viewing activities

are experiencing rapid growth. The total dollar

volume of sales in this activity is approximately

$1,000,000 per year, with at least 20,000 participants. Many people also regularly enjoy seabird

viewing without paying a commercial venture;

they motor or paddle out to islands in their own

canoes or kayaks. The total dollar value attributed

to this activity in coastal Maine is approximately

$525,000 per year, with at least 10,500 annual

visits (Colgan, 2002). Puffin-watching cruise

USFWS photo
Chapter 1

1-28 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

We heard concerns about the growth of this eco-tourism industry, specifically the increased number or frequency of tour boats visiting coastal

nesting islands, resulting in an increased potential for disturbing nesting

seabirds, wading birds, and eagles. Yet other respondents expressed an

interest in seeing this wildlife observation opportunity continue, commercially provided or otherwise. Some mentioned an increased outreach and

education campaign might ensure visitors become aware of the disturbances created and seek ways to minimize it. Others recommended that

the islands be off-limits and that we enforce a wide no-access zone around

the islands during the nesting season to preclude boat activity.

The alternatives consider various levels of outreach to user groups such as

canoeists, kayakers, and commercial touring operations.

3. How will our management activities affect public access to coastal

nesting islands?

Under a State Colonial Ordinance of 1649, people have a right to use the

intertidal zone around islands for “fishing, fowling, or navigation.” Use of

the island above mean high tide, however, is controlled by the property

owner(s). Most people recognize that Service acquisition of nesting

islands will result in a seasonal closure to protect the nesting seabirds,

wading birds, or bald eagles. Opinions vary on this restriction.

Some people want increased opportunities for public access to coastal

islands and would not support any additional restrictions. They believe

that allowing people to experience the islands first-hand will contribute to

their understanding and appreciation of these national resources. Many

commented that access should especially be allowed for historic and

traditional activities, such as berry picking, waterfowl hunting, camping,

and annual family picnics.

Others are concerned that increased public

access will only lead to increased disturbance

to nesting birds, and sensitive plant and cultural areas. Some expressed concern with the

potential for increased vandalism and trespass

on private property when access on adjacent

Federal lands is allowed. A few suggested that

the islands be off-limits year round to ensure

full protection of the special resources found

there. Others believe access should be allowed,

but tightly controlled.

The alternatives compare different levels of

public access, including variations on the

seasonal closure period and the types of uses

allowed.

A view of the shore of Cross Island

USFWS photo
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 1-29

4. How will we manage habitats to protect threatened or endangered

species, or other species of management concern?

Several Federal-listed species, including the threatened bald eagle and the

endangered roseate tern, are found on some of Maine’s coastal islands.

Several of these islands are part of the Refuge Complex. A number of

State-listed species, including several plants, are also present on these

islands. Active management, to avoid habitat loss or degradation and

sustain or increase populations, is one of the best ways to ensure the longterm survival of these species of concern. Several Refuge Complex islands

have active seabird habitat restoration programs in place.

The Service is responsible for protecting Federal-listed endangered and

threatened species and keeping additional species off of the Federal list. In

addition to these, there are other species of management concern warranting protection, including anadromous fish, certain marine mammals, Statelisted and other rare or declining species as identified in Appendix B.

Many people expressed their interest in protecting these species and,

where possible, increasing populations through management. Their

reasons ranged from a fear of losing a species entirely to an interest in

maintaining overall biological diversity on coastal islands. Some are

particularly interested in increasing well-distributed populations

throughout the Gulf of Maine to protect against catastrophic losses. Others

expressed the view that many unique natural communities and species of

plants and animals, both terrestrial and marine, are found on coastal

nesting islands. Protecting this diversity is the key to a healthy island

Arctic tern in flight

USFW photo
Chapter 1

1-30 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

environment. The emphasis on coastal nesting islands for seabirds, wading

birds, and eagles will have direct and indirect benefits for many other species.

A few people are concerned that refuge management is focusing too much

on protecting nesting habitat at the expense of the other habitat needs for a

given species. They argue that it is equally important to protect the feeding, roosting, and migratory areas used by the birds. Feeding areas located

on mudflats or open water may be subject to disturbance or overharvesting

of resources upon which the birds depend. Habitat in feeding areas may be

disturbed or altered by dredging and dragging, deposition of sediments or

dredged materials, or other activities. Others point out the need to learn

more about what the birds feed on and where they feed.

Some people expressed fear that the presence of endangered or threatened

species will severely restrict their ability to continue using and enjoying

the islands. They do not support increased Federal acquisition of islands.

Other respondents want us to “let nature takes its own course” without any

intervention in managing these populations.

Several people wanted a clearer understanding of our management goals

and objectives before they formed an opinion. They asked how we will

decide on population goals for species of management concern, and how

this translates into habitat management on coastal islands.

The alternatives compare different objectives and strategies for managing

the species of management concern identified in Appendix B.

5. How will we control the impacts of predators on species of

management concern?

We identified the need to control predators at seabird nesting sites as an

important management concern. Herring and great black-backed gulls are

highly effective at preying on the eggs and young of several nesting

seabird species of concern. In addition, these two gulls often out-compete

less common species, such as terns and laughing gulls, for nesting space on

islands. In our current management, we generally

remove nesting herring and black-backed gulls

before we restore colonies of the less common

seabirds. Mammals like rats, raccoons, mink,

cats, and birds like owls and night-herons can

also create serious predation problems on islands.

Some people recognize the importance of controlling predators to help maintain and restore

diversity on nesting islands. Others are concerned

about lethal predator control techniques, including trapping and the use of avicides, and adamantly oppose their use on the Refuge Complex.

Some people support predator control only if

there is a threat to human life.

Great back-backed gull preys on tern

Photo courtesy of the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 1-31

The alternatives compare and contrast different levels and techniques of

predator control.

6. How will we manage sheep grazing on refuge lands?

We identified the amount and timing of sheep grazing on Refuge Complex

islands as a management concern. Sheep currently graze on Nash and

Metinic islands, where they have grazed for over 100 years. Grazing also

occurs on other islands proposed for Service acquisition in the Land

Protection Plan (Appendix A). Grazing is considered a traditional and

historic island activity by many people. Others, however, feel that grazing

is inconsistent with the “wildlife first” mission of the Refuge System and

oppose this activity on refuge lands.

Our observations on Nash and Metinic islands,

and on other grazed private islands, indicate

that when sheep graze too long in one area, or

their numbers exceed foraging capacity, their

presence can have a serious impact on nesting

seabirds and their habitat. Overgrazing destroys the

grasses and shrubs needed by nesting terns and

eiders and forces nesting birds to use lowerquality habitat elsewhere on the island. In

addition, sheep can directly disturb the birds

by trampling their nests and eggs, or by forcing

adult birds to flush from the nest, making their

eggs or young more susceptible to predation by

gulls.

On the other hand, our staff and sheep owners

feel that grazing can be used as an effective

vegetation management tool when the number of animals, time of year,

and length of grazing season are properly managed. In general, the vegetation on tern nesting islands must be managed to promote shorter grasses

and other herbaceous vegetation, and not allow shrub or other woody

growth, such as raspberry. It is challenging to get equipment to these

islands, and prescribed fire is not always a viable option. As such, sheep

grazing is considered by many to be a practical solution if managed

properly to meet specific objectives.

The alternatives evaluate different levels of sheep grazing in support of

seabird habitat management.

7. How will we manage non-native, invasive species on refuge lands?

Most people recognize that non-native, invasive plants and animals can

displace native species, degrade wetlands and other natural communities,

and reduce natural diversity and wildlife habitat values. Non-native plants

outcompete native species by dominating light, water, and nutrient reGrazing sheep dot the Metinic Island landscape

USFWS photo
Chapter 1

1-32 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

sources. We are concerned that, once established, invasive plants are

expensive and labor-intensive to eliminate; they are able to establish

easily, reproduce prolifically, and disperse readily, making eradication

difficult. Preventing new invasions is extremely important for maintaining

biological diversity and native plant populations.

Fortunately, the Refuge Complex has very few non-native plant or animal

species on its mainland divisions. In these areas, monitoring is all that has

been warranted to date. On Refuge Complex islands, however, little

information is available.

The alternatives consider different levels of effort to determine the

presence of invasive plant species and establish management strategies to

deal with them.

8. How can we effectively monitor and inventory wildlife populations and

habitat on refuge lands?

We are challenged each year by the staffing, funding, and logistical requirements of an effective resource monitoring and inventory program.

We must make difficult choices regarding priorities because of limited

available resources, which can vary widely between years. Unfortunately,

our budget does not include a dedicated source of permanent funding for

carrying out important habitat and population inventory and monitoring

activities. We rely on competitive sources of funding – Challenge Grants,

Cooperative Agreements, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation,

habitat funds, etc., to supplement Service funding. The uncertain availability of funding from year to year has always hampered our long-term

planning.

Everyone we spoke with encouraged the continued partnership with the

Gulf of Maine Coastal Program, where resource information is shared

among many groups. The Coastal Program compiles and analyzes scientific resource data collected by the Service, State, and private conservation

organizations. Through their analysis, they identify significant fish and

wildlife habitats in need of protection, monitor population trends for

certain species in the Gulf of Maine, identify existing information gaps for

species of concern, and, consequently, determine future research needs.

Many people feel this effort fills an important need and must be continued

as an ongoing and long-term project. Others pointed out that other partnerships, for example, with universities and colleges or other conservation

organizations, may be available to support implementation of Service

inventory and monitoring priorities and encouraged us to explore these

possibilities.

The alternatives consider different levels of inventory and monitoring

effort and pursuit of partnerships to accomplish priority activities.
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 1-33

9. How will we build partnerships to protect coastal wildlife habitats and

support priority wildlife-dependent uses?

We have established many valuable partnerships working to protect wildlife

and habitats along the Maine coast. Partners are integral to virtually every

program on the Refuge Complex. Our partners assist us in activities including environmental education and interpretive programs, habitat evaluations, species inventories, nest site monitoring, and seabird restoration. In

Chapter 3 we describe these partners and their missions in greater detail.

Due to the cyclical nature of funding for

government agencies and the consistent membership support in conservation organizations,

partnerships among public agencies and

private organizations are vital to accomplishing the Refuge Complex goals. Many people

believe the only way to protect Maine’s islands

is for all parties – private island owners;

Federal, State and local agencies; and private

organizations – to voluntarily join forces, form

partnerships, and pool resources to accomplish

the common good. There is a great deal of

support for an approach that focuses on

voluntarily working together in the spirit of

cooperation, combining resources, sharing information, keeping people

informed, and simply being good neighbors.

Partnerships can also help us provide high-quality, wildlife-dependent,

public use opportunities. Non-consumptive uses such as environmental

education are especially amenable to partnerships.

The alternatives compare different levels of effort towards pursuing

partnerships.

10. How will we provide and maintain high-quality programs for the six

priority public uses (hunting, fishing, environmental education and

interpretation, and wildlife observation and photography)? Also, how

will we manage traditional uses?

Local residents have expressed concern about the possible loss of opportunities to participate in many of the traditional activities they have enjoyed

on, or adjacent to, coastal nesting islands. These include picnicking,

camping, berry picking, shell fishing, fin fishing, trapping, and waterfowl

hunting. They fear that any conservation or protection measures taken on

nesting islands will result in additional restrictions on opportunities to

pursue these activities. Others point out that these activities, when carried

out during the nesting season, can disturb the birds. They believe that use

Arctic terns

USFWS photo
Chapter 1

1-34 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

of the islands during the nesting season must be restricted or very tightly

controlled.

Many people identified environmental education and interpretation opportunities as their highest priority for public use at the refuge. They expressed concern that there are both local residents and frequent visitors

who are unaware of the importance of the nesting islands and the role they

play in the coastal ecosystem. It is a concern to some that most people are

not familiar with the less visible and more uncommon species that inhabit

the islands. In order to instill a sense of wonder regarding the special

habitats and populations found on the nesting islands and encourage

ethical practices, many people believe that more environmental education

opportunities should be provided. In particular, they want us to increase

our outreach efforts to local schools and communities.

As our priority, we will continue to promote the wildlife-dependent uses

stipulated as a priority in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. The Act states specifically, “Compatible-wildlife

dependent recreational uses (e.g. hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and

photography, environmental education, and interpretation) are the priority

general public uses of the System and shall receive priority consideration

in refuge planning and management.” In addition, the Service’s final

compability regulations pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act of 1997 (Part 603, Chapter 2 of the Service Manual)

states that refuges are closed to public access until and unless we open the

area for a specific use. It is only after the Refuge Manager determines that

the use is compatible that we will open for any new use, or expand, renew,

or extend an existing use. A compatible use is one that, based on sound

professional judgement, will not materially interfere with or detract from

the fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the

purposes of the national wildlife refuge.

The alternatives evaluate different levels of providing compatible public

use programs, emphasizing the six priority, wildlife-dependent public uses

identified in the Refuge Improvement Act. Appendix C includes the

compatibility determinations completed for the Service’s Preferred Alternative.

11. How will we manage activities that are not compatible on refuge lands?

Many people have expressed concern about the vandalism, trespass,

intertidal harvesting, and other collecting occurring on Refuge Complex

islands. They point out that a Service presence is limited on most islands

during the year, and that many of these activities are undetected. A few

people mentioned that only a few islands have signs or notices alerting

people to allowed activities and seasons of use. Another concern identified

is that people often bring pets ashore when visiting islands, which can

cause serious problems to wildlife during the nesting season.
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 1-35

In general, it is very difficult to enforce trespass laws on islands. Also challenging is the

fact that the Service does not have jurisdiction

in the intertidal areas unless a Federal law is

violated or Federal trust resources may be

impacted. Generally, the intertidal areas are

under the jurisdiction of the State.

The alternatives evaluate different strategies

for dealing with activities already occurring on

the Refuge Complex have been determined

incompatible with Refuge purposes. The

strategies include various levels of outreach

and law enforcement capability.

12. How will we improve communications, raise the visibility of the

Service and Refuge System, and build working relationships with local

communities?

Local residents are becoming more aware of Refuge Complex activities

and benefits to their local communities. However, we are striving for even

stronger ties to local communities to gain increased understanding and

support for the Refuge System and our Refuge Complex programs. Through

increased communications, listening and sharing information, we believe

we can make great strides toward conserving the nationally significant

resources along coastal Maine.

Some people suggested regular contacts with Tribal representatives, State

and local elected officials, and conservation planning efforts at State and

local levels. Others would like us to be more involved in Chamber of

Commerce and local community events. A Friends Group, Friends of

Maine Seabird Islands, has been initiated in the mid-coast area, which

shows great promise as an advocacy group for the Refuge Complex.

Other ideas were shared to increase the Service’s visibility and Refuge

Complex activities. Some people noted that not all Refuge Complex

islands have boundary, informational, or regulatory signs to make visitors

more aware of the importance of the islands to nesting birds and their

vulnerability to disturbance. These respondents believe that more people

need to understand that the islands are closed during the nesting season

solely for the protection of the birds. Others suggested that informational

brochures be developed to educate people and build public support for

island protection.

The alternatives compare different levels of community involvement and

ways of raising the Service’s visibility.

An illegal campsite on Schoppee Island

USFWS photo
Chapter 1

1-36 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

13. What funding, staffing, and infrastructure will we need to manage a

refuge that spans the coast of Maine and includes coastal islands?

Many who support Refuge Complex management activities appreciate the

logistical challenges of managing 43 islands scattered over 200 air-miles

of the Maine coast. When carrying out management or law enforcement activities, we

must haul boats by trailer from the Refuge

Complex offices in Milbridge or the satellite

office in Rockport to public launch sites on the

mainland. In good weather, it can take as long

as 1 to 2 hours to reach those islands farthest

out once the boat is launched. Often, in periods

of high seas and fog, it is virtually impossible

to reach the islands. Setting up and supplying

summer base camps on the islands to support

research and management activities can be

time consuming, costly, and dangerous. Many

islands are difficult to land on, even in good

weather. A few people noted that more staff

located centrally in the mid-coast area might

alleviate some of this problem.

Some people expressed their concern with the lack of law enforcement

capabilities on the Refuge Complex. We currently have no law enforcement officers on the staff. Adequately patrolling Refuge Complex mainland areas and widely scattered islands and responding to incidents has

become an impossible task. As public use of the Refuge Complex increases, current law enforcement difficulties will be compounded, especially during the critical nesting season, when the potential for disturbance

is greatest.

The alternatives compare different funding and staffing levels needed to

support respective objectives and strategies.

14. Which lands will be studied for their wilderness potential and

recommended for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation

System?

Service planning policy requires us to review current Refuge Complex

lands for their wilderness potential during the CCP planning process. A

wilderness review consists of three phases: 1) inventory; 2) study; and, 3)

recommendation. A wilderness inventory is conducted first to see if refuge

lands meet the minimum criteria established in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act. Lands that meet the criteria are called wilderness study areas

(WSAs). In the study phase, we evaluate the WSA's values (e.g., ecological,

Transporting people and equipment on the Refuge Complex is

often a challenge

USFWS photo
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 1-37

recreational, cultural, economic, and symbolic), resources (e.g., wildlife,

water, vegetation, minerals, and soils), and existing and proposed public

uses, and analyze whether we can manage the wilderness values and

character over the long-term.

Basically, we determine if the WSAs are suitable for wilderness designation. The inventory and study phases are incorporated into the CCP process. In the recommendation phase, we forward the suitable recommendations on to our Director. Our Director must concur with the wilderness

study findings and suitable recommendations before they are forwarded or

reported through the Secretary of Interior and the President of the United

States, to Congress for final approval.

We conducted an inventory and study of existing Refuge Complex lands

and determined that 13 islands met the minimum criteria for wilderness.

These islands were then grouped into eight WSAs. At this stage, the issue

thus becomes whether we can manage for wilderness values and character

long-term, without jeopardizing our management to achieve each affected

refuge's establishment purposes and the Refuge System mission.

During our scoping meetings, we heard mixed support for wilderness

designation. Some people were simply unsure how this would affect

current management of Refuge Complex islands; namely, how such a

designation would impact public use and access. Several other people

supported wilderness designation for as much refuge land as possible to

prevent land uses, such as timber harvesting or grazing, that they believed

could potentially degrade natural values. Others felt that wilderness

designation would actually harm the character of coastal Maine by attracting additional visitors to the islands. Some of these same people felt that

the Service could manage for wilderness character while not officially

designating it as such.

The alternatives range from proposing none to all eight WSAs for inclusion into the National Wilderness Preservation System. Chapter 4 analyzes

the consequences of each alternative’s proposal.

1. How will refuge activities affect the local economy and tax base?

Many people expressed the opinion that refuge lands affect the local

economies primarily by increasing the potential for eco-tourism (see issue

#2, “Increased recreational and commercial uses on or near coastal nesting

islands”).

Some people are concerned that refuge lands reduce the local tax base,

since the Federal government does not pay property taxes. They believe

this places an additional financial burden on town residents who own land

and pay taxes on their property. They note that, in addition to Federal

lands, those owned by the State and some land trusts are tax-exempt,

Other Issues to Address
Chapter 1

1-38 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

which has a cumulative impact on the tax base. On the other hand, others

noted that Refuge Revenue Sharing payments to towns help offset, and

sometimes more than compensate for, these tax losses.

A few people value the open space protection provided by refuges and

believe the tangible and intangible benefits to the community are much

greater when these islands are protected and

kept as open space. They noted that open space

benefits local economies by raising property

values, lowering infrastructure needs, and

maintaining lower costs for community services compared to developed areas.

The alternatives have differing impacts on the

local economy as described in Chapter 4:

Environmental Consequences.

2. How will we protect historic resources on

refuge lands?

Some people expressed their interest in protecting the lighthouses and associated structures. A few people represented national organizations dedicated to this preservation effort.

Eight refuge islands have lighthouses: Libby,

Petit Manan, Egg Rock, Matinicus Rock, Two

Bush, Franklin, Pond, and Nash islands. Except

for the Nash Island light, these lighthouses

have been automated.

All the lighthouses except Two Bush are on the

National Register of Historic Places; however

the Service is not responsible for maintaining

these structures on Franklin, Pond, Petit Manan

(except the lightkeeper’s house and outbuildings on Petit Manan Island), and Nash islands.

As such, it is only on Libby Island, Egg Rock, and Matinicus Rock, where

the Service is responsible for maintaining the lighthouses to national

historic preservation standards. The U.S. Coast Guard maintains the aids to

navigation within the lighthouses.

Historically, we have lacked adequate funding to maintain all the lighthouses and historic structures found on these islands. Without adequate

funding and the assistance of lighthouse Friends Groups or other agencies

and organizations, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for us to meet

these legislated responsibilities.

While all alternatives include a requirement to maintain the registered

historic lighthouses to standard, the alternatives compare different levels

of promoting their use and enjoyment.

Lighthouse on Libby Island

USFWS photo
Issues Outside the Scope of this EIS

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 1-39

3. How will we promote volunteer opportunities and a Friends Group?

At public scoping meetings, we heard a lot of interest in volunteer opportunities and initiating a Friends group for the Refuge Complex. We began

a formal volunteer program in 2000 and currently has 11 volunteers.

Volunteers help with administrative, biological, and public use activities.

In the fall of 2002, a Refuge Complex Friends Group, Friends of Maine

Seabird Islands, officially formed in the mid-coast area. Their community

outreach efforts have tremendously benefitted the Refuge Complex.

The alternatives evaluate different levels of support for volunteers and

establishing other Friends groups in downeast Maine.

4. How can we provide technical assistance to others interested in

managing for wildlife and habitats?

The need to provide technical assistance to interested island owners, land

trusts, and private organizations was identified by many as an important

issue. Those who own coastal nesting islands aren’t always certain of their

significance and what needs to be done to maintain the values that make

the islands so special for wildlife. The Service’s Gulf of Maine Program

helps provide technical assistance and routinely identifies and distributes

information about potential sources of funding. Many people feel this fills

an important need and should be continued. Our staff could complement

this effort by providing technical assistance more specifically on habitat

management techniques.

The alternatives evaluate different levels of providing technical assistance.

These issues were brought up by the public or by the planning team during

the scoping process. In some instances, the Service does not have any, or

only limited, regulatory or jurisdictional authority over the issue. Other

issues may be covered under other Service programs, initiatives, or planning projects. Some of the concerns implicit in these issues are addressed

in Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences. However, all of these issues

are considered outside this document’s stated purpose and need for action

and, thereby, do not fall within its scope of analysis.

1. How will we affect aquaculture operations adjacent to coastal nesting

islands?

Aquaculture is important to the local and State economies in Maine. In

Chapter 3, Affected Environment, we provide a summary of the current

state of Maine’s aquaculture industry.

Many people expressed opinions on the benefits of this industry to local

communities and the coastal ecosystem. Some people are concerned that

Service ownership of islands will adversely impact present and future

aquaculture operations by imposing restrictions. Industry supporters are

particularly concerned about increased Service acquisition of islands

Issues Outside the

Scope of this EIS
Chapter 1

1-40 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

coupled with the Federal-listing of wild Atlantic salmon as an endangered

species in several Maine rivers. In their opinion, Federal acquisition will

only continue to reduce the economic viability of an industry impacted by

the salmon listing.

Some respondents suggested that aquaculture pens are beneficial as they

can provide feeding, roosting, and loafing sites for birds. Fish-eating birds

are commonly seen “pirating” fish reared in the pens. Other people,

however, are concerned that the noise and activity from aquaculture

operations at off-shore facilities may disturb nesting birds on nearby

islands. In addition, they feel that disease control, feeding, and waste

products at facilities cause pollution.

Some people were not opposed to aquaculture operations per se, but they

believe care should be taken to select suitable sites away from known bird

nesting islands. Finally, there are some people who do not believe there is

any impact on the ecosystem.

The aquaculture issue is complicated and by no means inconsequential;

however, we do not believe it warrants a detailed analysis within the

context of this CCP. The industry is faced with many challenges, none of

which are the direct result of Refuge programs. These challenges include a

combination of health and environmental problems, such as infectious

salmon anemia, the Federal-listing of Atlantic salmon as an endangered

species, competition from foreign producers, and the lengthy lease process.

A prospective aquaculture operator must undergo both a State and Federal

review and permitting process prior to obtaining the necessary leases. The

State review is generally initiated first. Both the Maine Department of

Marine Resources (DMR) and Department of Environmental Protection

(DEP) review and decide on whether to issue State permits. In addition,

the Maine DEP has been delegated authority by the Federal Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) to insure operations comply with the Clean

Water Act. Unless a Federal-listed species is involved, the Service may

not be consulted at this stage.

The Federal permits in Maine are then reviewed and approved by the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). When a permit application is submitted, the ACOE shares the permit application with the Service’s Ecological

Service’s Maine Field Office for a review and recommendation. This

review is required under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the

Endangered Species Act. The Service does not have jurisdiction or management authority over coastal waters or the intertidal zone unless, as

noted above, it is determined that a Federal-listed species may be impacted. Typically, the Maine Field Office recommendation is for the

aquaculture facility to be located no closer than 1/4 mile from a Refuge

Complex island or other Federal-owned island, although this can vary

depending on the size of the island and the species which might be
Issues Outside the Scope of this EIS

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 1-41

impacted. This recommendation by the Maine Field Office is non-binding.

If a Federal-listed species, such as a nesting bald eagle, is documented

near the prospective site, then the Maine Field Office would initiate a

detailed review and recommendation process as required under Section 7

of the Endangered Species Act. The Refuge Program staff are not the

authority responsible for this process; however, they will consult with the

Field Office upon request.

The January 2004 report by the Governor’s Task Force on the Planning

and Development of Marine Aquaculture in Maine provides a wealth of

information on the history and status of aquaculture in Maine and includes

a total of 95 individual recommendations for improving the development

of the industry while considering impacts on other uses and the environment (www.maine.gov/dmr). One recommended best management practice is to insure that facilities do not interfere

within 1,000 feet of “important ecological,

recreational, scenic, cultural, or historic”

local, State, or Federal lands. Should this

recommendation be adopted, it is very

closely aligned with the minimum Service

recommendations.

The following reasons influenced our

decision to not undertake a detailed analysis

on impacts to aquaculture operations from

implementing this Refuge Complex CCP.

First, the purpose of this CCP is to develop

strategic management direction for our

Refuge Program staff to implement on

refuge lands. It does not provide direction

for other Service programs, nor are we

attempting to modify the current lease

review process, or impose jurisdiction where

we have no authority, as in State waters.

Second, there is a lot of uncertainty with

predicting the locations and extent of future

aquaculture facilities. This uncertainty

restricts and compromises our ability to

conduct a meaningful impacts analyses. In

our past experience, we have been more

concerned with the proximity of finfish

operations to Refuge Complex islands

because these facilities and associated

activity have more potential to disturb

nesting birds. However, future locations

for finfish facilities are the most difficult

Aquaculture pens at Libby Islands

USFWS photo
Chapter 1

1-42 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

aquaculture operation to predict (Horne-Olson, pers com). Contributing to

this uncertainty is the pending release of the Atlantic Salmon Recovery

Plan, which will address aquaculture issues, and establish actions necessary to de-list the species from the Federal Endangered Species list. Third,

it is our expectation that the release of the Govenor’s Task Force report,

coupled with the pending release of the Federal recovery plan, will provide the basis for public meetings on improving the governance and

implementation of aquaculture in Maine. For example, recommendations

on improving the lease process, establishing minimum buffer widths,

implementing seasonal restrictions, and use of new technologies should all

be discussed through this forum. It is through these public hearing processes that the Service may best be able to affect aquaculture practices to

the benefit of natural resources. Finally, the management alternatives in

this draft CCP/EIS include resource monitoring at aquaculture sites in

close proximity to Refuge islands with sensitive seabird and bald eagle

nesting and feeding areas. The monitoring would be done in cooperation

with State agencies, our research partners, and industry representatives.

The information obtained would provide us with a more informed basis

for analyzing future impacts.

Given the reasons noted above, and the purpose of this draft CCP/EIS, we

determined it was not warranted to conduct a detailed impacts analysis on

the relationship of proposed Refuge Complex management to the aquaculture industry in Maine.

2. Will we use eminent domain (condemnation) to take privately owned

coastal nesting islands?

The Service, like all Federal agencies, has been given the power of eminent domain which allows it to condemn and acquire lands for the public

good. Some island owners fear that the Service will condemn and take

their islands without their consent. They also fear that if this happens they

will not be adequately compensated for the real value of their island.

Others believe the Service should use all of the tools at its disposal,

including eminent domain, to conserve and protect coastal nesting islands.

Service policy is to acquire property only from willing sellers, at market

value. None of our alternatives include the use of eminent domain, therefore, we believed it did not warrant further analysis.

3. Will we take away or regulate private property owners’ rights?

Some people believe the presence and involvement of the Federal

government will result in the loss of some of their rights as property

owners, ultimately affecting their ability to use their land as they see fit.

This would effectively reduce the value of their land by preventing them

from placing it in its “highest and best use.” They believe that, even if the

Federal government doesn’t directly regulate or restrict their rights, local
Issues Outside the Scope of this EIS

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 1-43

or State governments may pass new regulations because of Service

interest in the nesting islands. Others feel very strongly that restricting

property owners’ rights to sell their land to anyone, including the Federal

government, infringes on their individual rights. We have no authority in

this planning process to restrict private property rights, or to manage

private lands, nor have we ever expressed an interest in doing so unless

under a partnership agreement. None of our alternatives consider

regulation of private property by the Service and, therefore, it does not

warrant additional discussion.

4. How will we affect lobstering and other commercial fisheries near

coastal nesting islands?

Lobstering and other forms of shell or fin fishing are important components of both local and State economies. The industry provides important

jobs in local communities, and many believe it is a mainstay of the traditional culture of coastal Maine. Anything that threatens the viability of the

industry is a concern to most people we spoke with. As with aquaculture

operations, some people are concerned that Service ownership of islands

will adversely impact present and future lobster operations by imposing

restrictions. Other people support the industry, but request that the Service

work closely with industry representatives to ensure that the fisheries vital

to seabirds, wading birds, and bald eagles are not overharvested.

Similar to what we presented in the aquaculture discussion, the Service

has no jurisdiction over commercial fisheries, unless it is determined that

Federal trust resources may be impacted. At this time, we determined this

issue is outside the scope of this document. It did not make sense for us to

evaluate new catch limits, new technologies, or other strategies given our

limited ability to directly influence an outcome. This topic will not be

addressed further.

5. Will we affect existing local and State land use regulations?

There are a variety of local and State land use

regulations regarding development on islands.

Some towns do not have effective regulations or

enforcement to conserve natural resources on

coastal nesting islands. Many people are concerned that the lack of consistency in the enforcement of existing regulations threatens nesting

islands. They fear that variances may be granted

that will result in adverse impacts on important

island habitats and that current regulatory tools

cannot adequately protect nesting islands. Others

complain that these regulations unduly hinder

their ability to make effective use of islands they

own.

Birch Point Trail on Petit Manan Point Division

USFWS photo
Chapter 1

1-44 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

The Service does not have the authority to alter State and local land use

regulations, although we can provide input through partnerships and

technical assistance. Proposing changes to local and State land use regulations are outside the scope of this document and will not be addressed

further.

Periodic review of the CCP will be required to ensure that objectives are

being met and management actions are being implemented. Ongoing

monitoring and evaluation will be an important part of this process.

Monitoring results or new information may indicate the need to change

our strategies.

The Service’s planning policy (FWS Manual, Part 602, Chapters 1, 3, and

4) states that CCPs should be reviewed at least annually to decide if they

require any revisions (Chapter 3, part 3.4 (8)). Revisions will be necessary

if significant new information becomes available, ecological conditions

change, major refuge expansions occur, or we identify the need to do so

during a program review.

At a minimum, CCPs will be fully revised every 15 years. We will modify

the CCP documents and associated management activities as needed,

following the procedures outlined in Service policy and NEPA requirements. Minor revisions that meet the criteria for categorical exclusions

(550 FW 3.3 C) will only require an Environmental Action Memorandum.

Plan Amendment

and Revision

Bald eagle chicks.

USFWS photo
Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 1-45

[

[

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
1-46 

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 STATEM

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

Mile

1:185,000 
Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 1-47

Nonesuch Riv er

Saco River

Scarborough River

Spurw

Saco Bay

Kennebunk River

Goosefair Bay

Stage I

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 STATEM

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

Mile

1:185,000
1-48 

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

He

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 643°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 1-5 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

Mile

1:185,000
Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 1-49

Kennebec River

Damariscotta Rive r

St 

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
1-50 

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 I

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 1-51

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

Cro

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

Sto

Northport C

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

Mile

1:185,000
1-52 

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

Mount 

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 I

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"W

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

Miles

1:185,000 
Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 1-53 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

Ironb

Preble 

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 Roc

Bean I

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"W

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

Mile

1:185,000
1-54 

Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Moosabec Reach

Easte

Ba

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 Wass

Inner Sand I

Drisko I

Petit Manan NWR Complex

Milbridge Office

Gouldsboro

Division Sawyers Marsh Division

Petit Manan Point Division

Corea

Heath

Division

Jonesp

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 STATEME

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

Miles

1:185,000
Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 1-55

Cobs

Moose Cove

Baileys Mistak

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

Mile

1:185,000