Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

■ Introduction

■ Effects on Water Quality and Soils

■ Effects on Air Quality

■ Effects on the Local and Regional Economy

■ Effects on Public Access, Educational and Recreational Opportunities

■ Effects on Cultural Resources

■ Effects on Vegetation and Habitats

■ Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species

■ Effects on Seabirds, Wading Birds, and Waterfowl

■ Effects on Other Native Wildlife of Concern

■ Effects of Wilderness Recommendations

■ Environmental Justice

■ Cumulative Impacts

■ Relationship Between Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity

■ Unavoidable Adverse Effects

■ Potential Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

Seaside sedge

USFWS photo
Chapter 4

4-2 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

This chapter describes the environmental consequences we predict from

implementing the management alternatives presented in Chapter 2. Where

detailed information is available, we present a scientific and analytic

comparison between alternatives and their anticipated consequences,

which we describe as “impacts” or “effects”. In the absence of detailed

information, we make comparisons based on our professional judgment

and experience. We specifically predict the effects of implementing the

management actions and strategies for each of the four alternatives:

Alternative A (Current Management), which serves as the baseline for

comparing Alternatives B (Service’s Preferred Alternative), Alternatives

C, and D.

We discuss in more detail the impacts to those resources associated with

the goals and significant issues identified in Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need

for Action. Direct, indirect, short-term, beneficial and adverse effects

likely to occur over the 15 year life span of the plan are discussed. Beyond

the 15-year planning horizon, we give a more speculative description of

the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. Table 4-3 summarizes the

effects predicted for each alternative and allows for a side-by-side comparison. Finally, this chapter identifies any irreversible and irretrievable

commitments of resources and the relationship of short-term uses and

long-term productivity.

As you read our descriptions of impacts, we ask that you also keep in

mind the relative size of the Refuge Complex in geographic proportion to

the entire Gulf of Maine ecosystem. The Refuge Complex comprises

7,961 acres, a relatively small land base compared to the 26 million acre

ecosystem. We generally describe the direct and indirect environmental

effects on a finer, or more local, geographic scale since these are easier to

determine with any certainty. It is important to keep in mind, however,

that Refuge Complex lands are not isolated units, and our prediction on

the extent and duration of impacts may be less

accurate when considering the influence on the

surrounding landscape. In other words, we

may have overstated some effects within their

larger geographic context.

Although the Refuge Complex lands comprise

only .03% of the ecosystem, all alternatives

were developed to contribute towards conservation goals in a larger geographic context.

The proposed species and habitat actions are

consistent with the State, Regional, Ecosystem

Team, and watershed conservation plans

identified in Chapter 1. At varying levels, they

would each make positive contributions to

these larger landscape-scale conservation

endeavors.

Introduction

Herring gull

USFWS photo
Introduction

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-3

Where we do not have reliable, quantitative information, we use the terms

“positive”, “negative”, and “neutral” as qualitative measures of how an

action could impact resources of concern. A positive impact implies an

action we predict would enhance or benefit the resources under consideration and help accomplish goals and objectives over the short- (<15 years)

or long-term (>15 years). A negative impact implies an action we predict

would be detrimental to a resource over the short- or long-term, possibly

affecting our ability to achieve goals and objectives. A neutral impact

means either (a) there would be no discernible effect, positive or negative,

on the resources under consideration; or, (b) predicted positive and negative effects would cancel each other out.

There are certain types of actions identified in Chapter 2 that do not

require additional NEPA analysis because they do not individually, or

cumulatively, have a significant effect on the human environment. These

actions are “categorically excluded” from further analysis or review and,

as such, their consequences are not further described in this chapter. These

categorically excluded actions include, but are not limited to, the following:

■ environmental education and interpretation programs (unless major

construction is involved)

■ research, resource inventories, and other resource information

collection activities

■ operations and maintenance of existing infrastructure and facilities

(unless major renovation is involved)

■ routine, recurring management activities and improvements

■ small construction projects (e.g. fences, berms, small water control

structures, interpretative kiosks, development of access for routine

management purposes)

■ vegetation plantings

■ reintroduction of native plants and animals

■ minor changes in amounts or types of public use

■ issuance of new or revised management plans when only minor changes

are planned

■ law enforcement activities

We have organized this chapter by major resource heading. Under each

heading, we offer an introduction and explanation of potential threats.

This is followed by our analysis, organized by alternative, and sub-divided

by the four refuge programs expected to result in the biggest resource

impacts: 1) land acquisition and protection; 2) public use and access

management; 3) vegetation and habitat management; and 4) wildlife

populations management. Exceptions to this organization are our discussions on impacts to the local economy, cultural resources, and wilderness.
Chapter 4

4-4 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Effects on Water

Quality and Soils

Maine’s coastal area is the State’s main attraction and has become the

single most important resource for tourism and the recreation industry in

the state (Colgan and Plumstead 1995). Commercial and private development pressures along Maine’s coast continue to increase with additional

waterfront real estate being developed for summer homes, piers, and

docks. This development, combined with associated human activities, can

alter water quality, as well as displace and/or eliminate vegetation, resulting in increased soil disturbance, erosion and storm water runoff and

change water circulation patterns. In particular, deteriorating water quality,

decreased soil productivity, and erosion in coastal Maine has become a

priority issue for State agencies and local communities. Direct impacts can

include filling, dredging, dragging, riprapping, damming, covering, impounding, scraping, or other physical activities (Ward 1999). Although

building projects may appear small and losses minimal, their cumulative

effect can be significant. Direct or nonpoint discharges of pollution can

cause increased water temperatures, degrade water quality, create turbid

conditions, change currents, or alter water salinity. Any of these can

diminish habitat quality or make the area unsuitable for native species.

Failing septic systems have been implicated as one of the major contributors to water quality problems in coastal Maine. When septic systems fail,

untreated nitrogen and bacteria may flow directly into groundwater,

streams or coastal waters. Even in fully functioning systems, it is estimated that only half the nitrogen dissipates during treatment (Horsley and

Witten Inc. 1995). Increasing restrictions on intertidal harvesting due to

bacterial contamination is an indication of how degraded water quality can

directly effect an important tradition and economic resource for coastal

Maine. These same areas also are extremely important to wildlife species,

who rely on many of the same resources for food and habitat.

Public use of Maine’s islands is increasing and damage to soils and water

quality is evident in heavily used areas. Soils can be impacted by reduction in soil macro porosity, decreased air and

water permeability, accelerated erosion, loss of

ground cover, and increased soil compaction.

Water quality can also be affected by public

use of islands through improper disposal of

human waste, garbage, and litter which can

degrade water quality, cause death to marine

life, and impair scenic values. Where camping

is allowed, soil compaction and vegetation

damage can occur at tent site locations.

A cooperative, interagency, watershed-level

approach to protecting these resources offers

the greatest opportunity to improve conditions

over the long term. On a local level, Refuge

Complex management can help improve Saltmarsh Gouldsboro Bay Division

USFWS photo
Effects on Water Quality and Soils

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-5

conditions in four ways: 1) acquire wetlands, associated uplands, and

coastal islands threatened with development; 2) facilitate protection by

others of important coastal habitats; 3) exchange technical information

with landowners on best management practices; and, 4) restore degraded

areas. There are, however, some management practices we employ, (such

as herbicides and prescribed fire), that have the potential to negatively

impact water quality and soils.

Under each alternative, we present the beneficial and potential adverse

consequences of our proposed management.

Impacts from Proposed Land Acquisition and Protection

Under Alternative A, we do not anticipate any negative impacts to water

quality or soils from our land acquisition and protection program. On the

contrary, Alternative A would result in the Service acquiring the 467.1

acres currently within Petit Manan Refuge’s approved acquisition boundary, and 30 additional coastal islands (881 acres), providing all with

permanent protection from development. Together, these mainland and

islands would result in 1,274 acres protected from further human-induced

degradation. Service acquisition of these lands would eliminate the direct

and indirect threats, and short- and long-term impacts associated with

development and public over-use and would maintain or enhance the

water quality and soils over the long- term.

Under Alternative A, we would continue to work with the Gulf of Maine

Program and MDIFW to identify significant habitat areas in need of

protection. We would continue to assist other conservation partners in

facilitating protection of these areas, providing the benefit noted above.

Impacts from Proposed Public Use and Access Management

Under Alternative A, we would continue our current management to

minimize resource impacts from public use by allowing only four refuge

islands open to public use year round (Bois Bubert, Halifax, Cross, and

Scotch Islands). These four islands would be able to support continued

year round use without significant impact to water quality and soils because of: their larger size and the fact that public use is dispersed (Cross

and Bois Bubert Islands); they are forested and their soils are less susceptible to erosion (Bois Bubert, Cross, and Scotch islands); or, because any

sensitive areas are precluded from access (Halifax). The remaining islands

within the Refuge Complex would continue to be closed seasonally during

the seabird nesting period (April 1 - August 31). This seasonal restriction

coincides with the highest tourism visitation period, thus reducing the

potential for human-induced degradation.

On Bois Bubert and Halifax islands, where overnight camping occurs,

capacity limits would remain at 10 campers/island/day. Outreach to

Alternative A (Current

Management)
Chapter 4

4-6 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

visitors by MITA and our staff on “Leave No Trace” outdoor ethics would

continue, as limited sources allow, to promote appropriate uses. All campers would continue to receive “Leave No Trace” guides either as a member of MITA or from our staff when reserving a campsite. We believe

these actions would continue to be effective in reducing visitor impacts

since little disturbance, and none that appears irreversible, has been

observed at camping areas to date.

Impacts from Proposed Vegetation and Habitat Management

We would continue limited use (120m2

) of the herbicide Roundup on the

10 acre Petit Manan Island in an effort to control raspberry. The primary

active ingredient of Roundup is glyphosate, which has undergone extensive environmental review and has not been found to be toxic to wildlife,

or bioaccumulate in the foodchain (Monsanto 1993). Roundup is a broadspectrum herbicide with no soil residual activity. The compound is degraded by microbes within the soil and the average half life of glyphosate

is less than 45 days (Monsanto 1993). On Petit Manan Island, the compound would be applied directly to the raspberry plants using a hand

sprayer. The Regional Contaminants Specialist, who is responsible for

upholding Federal standards for water quality and soil protection, has

reviewed our proposals and approves chemical herbicide use.

Under Alternative A we would continue maintaining approximately 30

acres/year of open field habitat on Petit Manan Point through mowing,

brush hogging, hydroaxing, prescribed burning, and limited chemical

treatments. The soil types in these uplands sites are not susceptible to

compaction, except under saturated conditions. Operations typically occur

in early spring or late fall when these conditions are unlikely. No compaction from past mechanical treatments has been noted to date.

Sheep grazing would also continue to be used as a vegetation management

tool on Metinic Island to maintain short grasses for nesting terns. This

island has been grazed for generations. Approximately 120 sheep graze on

the island year round. We would continue to utilize fencing to restrict

grazing near the tern colony during the nesting season, but allow this area

to be grazed August through April. Without seasonal fencing, sheep

grazing can result in disturbance to seabirds, decreased nesting cover, and

trampling of nests. Some localized shoreline soil erosion has occurred as a

result of reduced ground cover caused by grazing, combined with natural

wave and wind action. While some erosion probably has occurred historically under natural conditions, we are not sure of the range of natural

variation. It is likely that continued grazing would further result in soil

compaction and potential erosion on island banks.

In 2002, we completed an EA for our Fire Program which includes stipulations under which we would operate. We describe these stipulations in

greater detail under the “Air Quality” discussion that follows. We would
Effects on Water Quality and Soils

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-7

continue to use prescribed fire to manage open fields and grasslands on

the Petit Manan Point and continue its use on a limited basis on coastal

islands, such as Petit Manan Island. We use fire to maintain those cover

types important to migrating and nesting birds, other resident wildlife, and

to reduce invasive plants. Up to 55 acres would be burned annually across

the Refuge Complex. Our mowing equipment is not always available to do

this work, nor accessible to coastal islands, so use of fire is our most viable

tool under most conditions. GOMSWG seabird experts are particularly

interested in evaluating best management techniques, including fire, for

treating island nesting habitat for seabirds over the long-term. Coordinated

monitoring of fire effects on the habitat used by nesting seabirds would

continue. We would also consider using prescribed fire to manage habitat

for seabirds on several additional islands based on our success to date.

While we would strive to maintain all fires within prescription to minimize resource degradation, impacts could occur in small areas. Prescribed

fire elevates surface temperatures; mineralizes detritus, litter and standing

dead material; volatilizes some nutrients and organic matter; alters soil

water-holding capacity; and alters populations of soil micro- and macrofauna (Barbour et al. 1999).

The effects to organic matter depend on the intensity and duration of fire.

Intense, long duration fires consume more organic matter than brief, low

intensity fires. Nitrogen compounds volatilize and are lost at temperatures

of 100-200 °C; in contrast, calcium, sodium, and magnesium are usually

deposited on the soil surface and recycled. At temperatures of 200-300 °C,

large amounts of organic substances are lost, which can reduce the cation

exchange and moisture holding capacity of soils.

Fire usually elevates soil pH, as a result of cation release; the effect is

particularly evident in acidic soils. In coastal plain regions, there is often

an increase in soil potassium and phosphorous levels following fires. Soil

microbial nitrogen fixation may be enhanced following fire, due to mineralization of nutrients and elevated pH levels in

soils (Barbour et al. 1999).

Removal of litter and duff may initially facilitate

water infiltration; nevertheless, evaporation is

also mediated by loss of litter and blackened

soils. This results in an overall reduction in the

water-holding capacity of soils. There is little

change in water repellency with cool fires (below

176 °C); moderately hot fires increase water

repellence (176-204 °C). Extremely hot fires

(above 204 °C) volatilize hydrophobic substances

and destroy soil water repellence (Debano et al.

1998). After moderately intense fires, runoff may

be increased due to lowered infiltration, and

erosion may result.

Petit Manan Point Division, field after prescribe burn, 2002

USFWS photo
Chapter 4

4-8 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Fires usually reduce fungi, but increase soil bacteria. It may remove soil

and litter pathogens. Nitrifying bacteria are often destroyed by fire. Legumes

and other nitrogen-fixing plants often must recover nitrogen losses due to

volatilization, as the recovery of nitrifying bacteria is slow (Barbour et al.

1999).

Our prescribed fires are carried out on a small scale in confined areas,

lasting for short durations, and are of low to moderate intensity. They also

consume only part of the duff/litter layer and rarely transfer significant

amounts of heat into the soils. Prescribed fires would be used to remove

litter and light fuels, and avoid the significant adverse effects of severe,

hot wildfires on soil resources.

Considering all potential treatment methods, we expect negligible direct or

indirect impacts on upland soils, as effects are limited due to short duration, and low to moderate intensity, and confined to the project area. We

expect none of the proposed actions to adversely impact soils or water

quality over the long term.

Impacts from Proposed Wildlife Populations Management

Under Alternative A, no impacts are predicted. No ground-disturbing

activities are proposed in support of this program, and there would be no

use of avicides.

Impacts from Proposed Land Acquisition and Protection

Similar to Alternative A, the greatest potential in Alternative B to improve

water quality and soils conditions is primarily through land acquisition,

protection, and sharing of best management practices to other landowners.

Under Alternative B, the Service would acquire the same 467.1 acres

within the Petit Manan Refuge approved boundary as Alternative A, but

would increase island acquisition to 87 nationally significant nesting

islands and acquire 153.3 acres of important wetlands on the mainland. In

total, this would add 2,859 acres to the Refuge Complex and afford these

acres permanent protection and eliminate the development threats identified in the introduction. This represents an increase of 1,585 permanently

protected acres over Alternative A. We would also continue working with

our conservation partners to determine the best methods for protecting the

remaining 64 unprotected nationally significant islands from development.

Alternative B would primarily represent an increase in our ability to

maintain or improve water quality and soils conditions on coastal islands.

Impacts from Proposed Public Use and Access Management

Similar to Alternative A, all 87 islands acquired would be seasonally

closed during the peak of the tourist season to protect resources, namely

Alternative B (Service’s

Preferred Alternative)
Effects on Water Quality and Soils

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-9

nesting seabirds. This limited access protects the soils from impact as

well. Camping would continue to occur on Halifax and Bois Bubert

islands, but limits of acceptable change would be established to ensure

that water quality, soils, and other natural resources found on the islands

are not being adversely effected by camping activities. In cooperation with

MITA, we would monitor the camp sites on a regular basis. Although

some soil compaction and loss of vegetation is expected at these sites,

efforts would be initiated to confine these effects to established sites,

within acceptable limits. We would not establish any new tenting sites,

and capacity limits would be enforced. We would lower intensity or

discontinue camping on the islands if the limits of acceptable change are

exceeded. Thus, no long-term, adverse or irreversible impacts would be

expected to island soils. Effects to water quality would be the same as

described in Alternative A.

Some soil compaction would likely result from the construction of new

trails and parking areas on the Gouldsboro Bay, Sawyers Marsh and Corea

Heath divisions. We would maintain up to approximately 106,000 square

feet (2.5 miles long by eight feet wide) of vegetation for each trail and 800

square feet (room for 10 cars) at each parking area. We would utilize as

much of existing, old dirt logging roads as possible. Within two years of

trail construction, two trail-side interpretive overlooks impacting 200

square feet each may be added to each trail. Boardwalks would be constructed over saturated sections to protect sensitive vegetation. The trails

and parking areas would increase access to the Refuge Complex’s mainland divisions for visitors such as photographers, bird watchers, and

hunters. Development of the trails would adversely effect the vegetation

and compact the soils within the footprint of the trails; however, it would

minimize continued soil compaction resulting from the creation of “unauthorized” trails.

On Petit Manan Point, we would build at least one overlook, impacting

200 square feet, on the Birch Point Trail, at Carrying Place Cove. Currently, Refuge Complex visitors routinely venture off the established trail

to view this area. While development of the overlook and access trail

would adversely effect the vegetation and soils within the footprint of the

project, steps would be taken to utilize an existing “unauthorized” trail for

the designated access to minimize additional disturbance. Establishment

of a viewing platform and access trail should limit human activity to one

defined area and minimize adverse effects to vegetation and soils along

the various access trails currently used by the public.

Impacts from Proposed Vegetation and Habitat Management

With the exception of an additional 55 acres/year managed for open field,

grasslands, and early successional habitat, the effects noted for soils and

water quality on the mainland would be similar to those described in

Alternative A. Also, treatment methods would be the same as proposed
Chapter 4

4-10 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

under Alternative A. We would expand the seabird restoration program to

include an additional 6 island projects (12 total). We would evaluate the

use of sheep grazing, fire and herbicides on additional coastal seabird

nesting islands. We predict the same local, low intensity, short duration

impacts as described for Alternative A on the new seabird sites. In addition, we would establish a monitoring and evaluation protocol to ascertain

the long-term implications of grazing on island soils and avoid irreversible

impacts. This alternative would also establish thresholds of acceptable

change on each island to ensure long-term protection and productivity of

soil and water resources.

Impacts from Proposed Wildlife Populations Management

There would be no impact to water quality or soils from managing wildlife

populations under Alternative B. No ground disturbing activities are

proposed in support of this program. The use of the avicide DRC-1339 for

lethal gull control may be employed to establish the six proposed new

seabird restoration islands, but is only likely if other measures prove

ineffective. The toxicant is very host specific and decomposes rapidly

within 48 hours resulting in no adverse long-term environmental effects to

water quality or soils.

Impacts from Proposed Land Acquisition and Protection

Of all the proposed alternatives, Alternative C would result in the most

lands acquired by the Service, leading to the most acres in permanent

protection to the benefit of water quality and soils. Under Alternative C,

the Service would acquire the same 467.1 acres on Petit Manan Refuge as

the other alternatives, but also would acquire all 151 nationally significant

nesting islands; or portions of the larger islands, and 153.3 acres of mainland described in Alternative B. On larger islands, most of which are

nationally significant for bald eagle nesting, we estimate we would pursue

approximately 125 acres of land surrounding the nest sites. In total, approximately 6,003 additional acres would be permanently protected. This

alternative would provide the greatest protection from the direct and

indirect threats to water quality and soils attributed to development and

would maintain or improve the integrity of these coastal island habitats.

Impacts from Proposed Public Use and Access Management

Under Alternative C, all 151 new islands, or portions of larger islands,

acquired would be closed seasonally to public use and access to protect

nesting birds and sensitive habitat areas. The effects would be similar to

those outlined in Alternatives A and B. During the open seasons, we would

initiate a permit system for day-use activities for groups larger than six

people in an effort to better manage the potentially adverse effects

Alternative C
Effects on Water Quality and Soils

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-11

(trampling, soil compaction and erosion) of public use on the coastal

island resources.

We would develop the same public use infrastructure on the mainland

divisions as Alternative B, resulting in the same levels of impact. Development of the trails would adversely effect the vegetation and compact the

soils within the footprint of the trails; however, it would minimize continued adverse effects resulting from the creation of “unauthorized” trails.

Boardwalks would be constructed over saturated areas to protect sensitive

vegetation.

We would also construct two photo blinds on the mainland divisions to

enhance opportunities for wildlife photography. At this point in time,

locations for the blinds have not been determined, but we anticipate

effects to the soils would be limited to the

footprint of the structures, approximately 200

square feet, and short access trails.

We would erect gates on either end of the Old

County Road in Gouldsboro in cooperation

with town officials in an effort to eliminate

illegal off-road vehicle use of the Gouldsboro

Bay Division. This action would minimize any

further vegetation destruction, soil compaction,

and erosion caused by this activity. We have

noted these impacts when visiting the division,

but have not quantified them.

Generally, the proposed actions seek to minimize any direct and long-term impacts to soils

and water quality. Where impacts are unavoidable, our actions are designed to contain the

impacts to the smallest specific areas.

Impacts from Proposed Vegetation and Habitat Management

The type of impacts are the same as described for Alternative B, only

expanded in scope to include 151 new nesting islands, or portions of larger

islands, instead of Alternative B’s 87 islands. In addition, we would pursue

12 new seabird restoration sites (18 total) commensurate with the increased island ownership proposed. We would follow the same vegetation

management and techniques proposed in Alternatives A and B. As we

describe in Alternative B, we would evaluate the use of sheep grazing, fire

and herbicides on additional coastal seabird nesting islands. We predict the

same local, low intensity, short duration impacts as described for Alternative A on the new seabird sites. Similar to Alternative B, we would establish a monitoring and evaluation protocol to ascertain the long-term

implications of grazing on island soils and avoid irreversible impacts. This

alternative would also establish thresholds of acceptable change on each

Ruts resulting from illegal off-road vehicle use, Gouldsboro

Bay Division, April 2000

USFWS photo
Chapter 4

4-12 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

island to ensure long-term protection and productivity of soil and water

resources.

Impacts from Proposed Wildlife Populations Management

Same as Alternative B, except 12 new seabird restoration sites are proposed (18 total), and the use of avicide may be expanded as necessary,

when other measures prove ineffective. However, no impacts are predicted

to soils or water quality based on our knowledge of the chemical properties of DCR-1339.

Impacts from Proposed Land Acquisition and Protection

Under Alternative D, we would propose service acquisition of only the

467.1 acres currently within the approved Petit Manan Refuge acquisition

boundary. Service acquisition of these lands would eliminate the direct

and indirect threats to soils and water quality associated with development. Our ability to have a significant impact on water quality and soils

protection on coastal islands is much less under this alternative compared

to the others due to the more conservative land protection proposed.

Impacts from Proposed Public Use and Access Management

All Refuge Complex islands would be closed to public use and access year

round, thereby eliminating all human-induced impacts to soils and water.

Natural erosion from wind and wave action would continue at natural

levels. While Alternative D offers greater protection for water quality and

soils on existing Refuge Complex lands, its limited proposal for new

acquisitions would afford much less protection of coastal habitats compared to the other alternatives.

Impacts from Proposed Vegetation and Habitat Management

Under Alternative D, we predict negligible impacts to water quality and

soils as no major ground disturbing activities would occur. We would,

however, burn up to three acres/year to remove debris piles or remove

brush along boundaries. These smaller, debris-pile fires would occur only

under the stipulations in the Fire EA. We would discontinue use of mowing and other mechanical treatments and herbicides, thereby minimizing

threats of soil compaction. Unfortunately, precluding the use of Federalapproved herbicides, prescribed fires, and mechanical treatments would

severely hamper our ability to control invasive plants. In particular, herbicides and prescribed fire have been used on other refuges to reduce invasive plants and to establish and maintain successful habitat areas in a costeffective or timely way. Over the long-term, some areas may end up

dominated by invasive plants.

Alternative D
Effects on Air Quality

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-13

This alternative would also eliminate sheep grazing from all Refuge

Complex lands, avoiding any further contributions to soil compaction and

erosion of shoreline banks from this source. In the absence of burning,

grazing, mowing, and herbicide use, island habitats would succeed to

denser and higher vegetation favoring some seabird species, but reducing

suitable nesting habitat for most seabird species of concern over the longterm. Soils and water quality would be protected, but on fewer acres under

this alternative.

Impacts from Proposed Wildlife Populations Management

No wildlife populations management would occur, thus, no impacts are

predicted to water quality and soils.

None of the actions proposed in any alternative violate the Federal or State

Clean Water acts. Over the long-term, considering direct and indirect

impacts, Alternative C would provide the most benefits to improved water

quality and soils protection. This is due to the greater land protection it

affords, while its habitat and public use management designs would

maintain or restore water quality and soils. Alternative B would be ranked

next highest, followed by Alternative A, then Alternative D.

Chapter 3 - Affected Environment presents the status of air quality along

the Maine coast. Poor air quality has adverse impacts on the Refuge

Complex and other natural areas, including the Class I airshed over

Moosehorn Refuge’s Wilderness Area. These impacts are also noted in

Chapter 3.

Our activities are most likely to directly impact air quality through use of

prescribed fire for habitat management, and by attracting visitors in

vehicles. Prescribed fires and vehicle emissions directly impact air quality

in three principal ways: 1) decreased visibility; 2) increased particulates;

and, 3) increased pollutants. Air pollutants contributed by vehicle emissions are a major concern in Maine. The State is dealing with this problem

through programs to reduce automobile emissions. While our visitors’

vehicles directly contribute air pollutants, they are not a principle cause of

poor conditions. Most Refuge Complex visitors are either local residents

or summer vacationers who are in the area already. The Refuge Complex

is a secondary destination. Most visitors travel less than 100 miles to the

Refuge Complex from their permanent or vacation residences. Their

contribution to poor air quality is negligible compared to that of urban and

industrial centers within a 200-mile radius.

The Refuge Complex positively impacts air quality primarily through

protection of natural lands. Natural vegetation and wetlands help offset

Effects on Air

Quality

Water Quality and

Soils - Summary
Chapter 4

4-14 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

pollution levels by acting as filters to the environment. Unfortunately, this

benefit has never been quantified for existing Refuge Complex lands.

Impacts from Proposed Land Acquisition and Protection

Alternative A would result in the Service acquiring and permanently

protecting 1,274 acres of natural lands. While difficult to quantify, Service

acquisition of these lands would eliminate the direct and indirect threats to

air quality associated with increased development, and permanently

maintain the pollution filtering effects of natural vegetation and wetlands.

Impacts from Proposed Public Use and Access Management

We predict annual visitation to the Refuge Complex after 15 years would

increase by 10 percent, or an additional 5,000 visitors, based on some

planned improvements to our visitor service’s program and the State’s

predicted increase in tourism to the area. We expect much of the additional

visitation would occur during the summer and fall months, when families

seek an alternative to the congestion at Acadia National Park.

Impacts from Proposed Vegetation and Habitat Management

Under Alternative A, we would contribute to poor air quality primarily

through our prescribed fire program.

In April 2002, we completed an environmental assessment (EA) and Fire

Management Plan for our wildfire suppression and prescribed fire program. All alternatives in this draft CCP/EA incorporate the decision of that

Fire EA. Alternative A proposes to utilize prescribed fire to maintain

grasslands, enhance habitats for threatened and endangered species,

reduce hazardous fuels and debris, or control invasive plant species. Under

the current Fire Management Plan, with existing Refuge Complex lands,

we proposed between 12 and 30 acres would be burned annually. Since

1988, we have conducted 26 prescribed burns on 120.8 acres with the

majority of the burns occurring on mainland blueberry and grassland

units. It is estimated that the size of the burn program would increase

slightly (20 to 55 acres annually) as additional lands are acquired and a

Habitat Management Plan is developed. Alternative A would implement

the following planned projects using prescribed fire over the next 15

years. Consider these figures annual maximums.

■ 30 acres/year for enhancing or maintenance of wildlife and plant

species populations;

■ 15 acres/year to preserve threatened and endangered species and

promote biological diversity;

■ 7 acres/year to control invasive plants and reduce hazardous fuels, and;

Alternative A (Current

Management)
Effects on Air Quality

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-15

■ 3 acres/year for boundary maintenance or debris removal around

boundaries, structures and facilities.

Visibility and clean air are important natural resource values on the Refuge Complex and the protection of these resources would be given full

consideration in fire management planning and operations. We would

comply with all applicable Federal, state, and local air pollution requirements, as specified within Section 118 of the Clean Air Act, as amended

(42 USO 7418). In addition, further guidance can be found in the Fire

Management Handbook (USFWS 2001) . The plan stipulates required

conditions under which prescribed fires would occur, to control its size, to

minimize or eliminate impacts on visibility, and to reduce the potential for

adding particulates and pollutants into the air created by the burning. All

the required conditions are geared to minimize smoke emissions and

follow Best Available Control Technology. The following measures would

minimize the impacts to air quality from prescribed fires:

■ Burning would only be permitted provided that the existing wind speed,

wind direction, and atmospheric conditions do not create nuisance

smoke conditions.

■ Smoke sensitive areas would be identified and addressed within the

Annual Prescribed Fire Plan. The direction of wind vector selected

would be such that smoke and other particulate emissions are

transported away from sensitive areas.

■ Burning would be conducted only when the visibility exceeds 2 miles

and the fire weather forecast indicates the presence of an unstable

airmass, mixing heights are greater than 1,500 feet, and ventilation rates

(mixing height x transport wind speed) is 7,500 or greater. A minimum

transport wind speed of 5 mph is recommended. A daily spot forecast is

required and is obtained from the National Weather Service.

■ No burning would occur if any government agency has issued an air

pollution health advisory, alert, warning, or emergency for the area

surrounding the Refuge.

■ Backing and flanking fires would be used when possible to minimize

particulate emissions.

■ Media sources would be kept informed of fire and smoke dispersal

conditions throughout any fire event.

Contrary to the short-term adverse effects on air quality resulting from our

prescribed fire program, the pollution-filtering benefits derived from

maintaining these areas in natural vegetation conditions would last in

perpetuity.

Since we predict our actions would only contribute negligibly to air

pollution levels, including impacts to the Class I airshed over Moosehorn

Refuge’s Wilderness Area, and assuming the prescribed fire stipulations
Chapter 4

4-16 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

are implemented as stated above, the negative direct and indirect impacts

from implementing Alternative A should be of relatively short duration

and light intensity.

Impacts from Proposed Wildlife Populations Management

No impacts to air quality are predicted that are not already described in the

vegetation management discussion above.

Impacts from Proposed Land Acquisition and Protection

Compared to Alternative A, greater benefits to air quality would be derived from implementing Alternative B since 2,859 acres of native vegetation and wetlands would be permanently protected from development and

would continue to filter pollutants in perpetuity.

Impacts from Proposed Public Use and Access

We predict annual visitation would increase approximately 25 percent

over current levels after 15 years (11,750 additional visitors), due to the

significant expansion in priority public use services and programs across

the Refuge Complex and projected increases in tourism to Maine. More

than half of this increase would be attributed to increased commercial boat

tours. The contribution to automobile emissions from Refuge Complex

related activities would increase proportionately over that projected for

Alternative A. However, some of the increased use would be spread

throughout the year as we develop environmental education and interpretation programs for children during the school year. Many of these latter

programs would consist of larger groups traveling together in public

transportation. The contribution to poor air quality through vehicle emissions would increase slightly over current levels, but would remain relatively insignificant in light of the industrial centers nearby. As described

with Alternative A, the additional emissions directly resulting from our

activities would cause impacts that are negligible and of short duration.

The Refuge Complex would continue to be a secondary destination for

out-of-town tourists or visited by local residents.

Impacts from Proposed Vegetation and Habitat Management

The impacts and concerns to air quality from managing vegetation stated

for Alternative A are the same for Alternative B. However, this alternative

has a slightly increased potential to adversely affect air quality because we

would use prescribed fire on more acres. The following planned projects,

with their potential use of prescribed fire, would occur under Alternative B.

Consider these figures annual maximums.

■ 70 acres/year total for enhancement or maintenance of wildlife and

plant species populations (includes the existing seabird island

Alternative B (Service’s

Preferred Alternative)
Effects on Air Quality

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-17

restoration projects and the future island restoration projects along the

coast of Maine(12 total));

■ 25 total acres/year to preserve threatened and endangered species and

promote biological diversity;

■ 10 acres/year to control invasive plant and reduce hazardous fuels; and

■ 5 acres/year for boundary maintenance or debris removal around

structures and facilities.

Similar to Alternative A, the natural vegetation and wetlands maintained

on the Refuge Complex would help offset pollution levels by acting as

filters to the environment. Unfortunately, this benefit has never been

quantified for refuge lands. Contrary to the short-term adverse effects on

air quality resulting from our prescribed fire, the pollution-filtering benefits derived from maintaining these areas under natural vegetation conditions would last in perpetuity.

Impacts from Proposed Wildlife Populations Management

No impacts predicted to air quality from the implementation of either

lethal or nonlethal predator management, or other population management

measures except as noted in the vegetation management discussion above.

Impacts from Proposed Land Acquisition and Protection

Compared to Alternative A, substantially greater benefits to air quality

would be derived from permanently protecting approximately 6,003 acres

of native vegetation and wetlands. Protected from development, these

lands would continue to filter pollutants in the atmosphere to the longterm benefit of air quality in the region.

Impacts from Proposed Public Use and Access

We predict annual visitation to the Refuge Complex would increase

approximately 50% over current levels after 15 years (23,500 additional

visitors) due to a dramatic expansion of priority public use opportunities.

The distribution of this increase and its impacts would be similar to

Alternative B, with the largest increase in visitors on commercial tour

boats. Despite this increase, we believe impacts to air quality are negligible over the long-term.

Impacts from Proposed Vegetation and Habitat Management

The types of impacts and concerns stated for Alternative A and B are

similar for Alternative C. However, this alternative has the highest potential to adversely affect these resources since we would be expanding the

use of prescribed fire, mechanical, and chemical means on more acres

Alternative C
Chapter 4

4-18 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

proposed for habitat restoration and invasive species control. The following planned projects would occur under Alternative C. Consider these

figures annual maximums.

■ 140 acres/year total for enhancement or maintenance of wildlife and

plant species populations (includes the existing seabird island

restoration projects and the future island restoration projects along the

coast of Maine(18 islands total));

■ 50 total acres/year to preserve threatened and endangered species and

promote biological diversity;

■ 50 acres/year to control invasive plant and reduce hazardous fuels; and

■ 10 acres/year for boundary maintenance or debris removal around

structures and facilities.

Impacts from Proposed Wildlife Populations Management

Same as Alternative B.

Impacts from Proposed Land Acquisition and Protection

Under Alternative D, the Service would acquire only the 467 acres within

the Petit Manan Refuge’s approved boundary. We would continue working

with our conservation partners to determine the most appropriate means of

providing permanent protection for the remaining 151 unprotected, nationally significant nesting islands. However, there is no assurance that these

islands would be protected. As such, the unprotected islands would be

subject to development and there would be a loss of the pollution filtering

effect afforded by natural vegetation and wetlands.

Impacts from Proposed Public Use and Access

We would expect visitation to be the same as Alternative A on our mainland divisions, but annual island visitation would decline by approximately 34% (16,000 fewer visitors). This decline would be attributed to a

year-round closure on all Refuge Complex islands and decreased habitat

quality for nesting seabirds resulting in fewer commercial tours. As such,

the Refuge Complex’s contribution to poor air quality from vehicle emissions would be similar to Alternative A, which is negligible, given the

impacts of nearby industrial centers and tourist destinations.

Impacts from Proposed Vegetation and Habitat Management

Alternative D would not implement prescribed fire for any restoration or

habitat project. However, we would burn up to 3 acres/year to remove

debris piles or remove brush along boundaries. These smaller, debris-pile

fires would occur only under the conditions stipulated in the Fire EA.

Alternative D
Effects on the Local and Regional Economy

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-19

These stipulations limit the scope, duration, and intensity of the fires, and

ensure that the impacts to air quality from the burn program would be

negligible.

Impacts from Proposed Wildlife Populations Management

No impacts are predicted as no population management is proposed.

No actions proposed in any of the alternatives violates State or Federal

EPA standards for the Clean Air Act. Alternative D would not contribute

any additional vehicular emissions, impair visibility, or use prescribed fire.

As such, Alternative D results in the least direct and indirect negative

impact to air quality compared to the other alternatives. Alternative A

would follow with the next lowest visitation numbers expected and next

least acres proposed for prescribed burning. This is followed by Alternative B, then C. Of note, however, is that while Alternative C proposes the

most acres of prescribed fire and would result in the highest number of

visitors traveling by automobile, these impacts are offset, though difficult

to quantify, by the alternative’s substantially greater land protection

benefits compared to the other alternatives. In summary, Alternative D

would have the least adverse impact on air quality, followed by Alternative A, then B, then C.

It is said that Maine’s seacoast is the backbone of the State’s economy.

This is not surprising as coastal Maine’s southern and mid-coast regions

are growing at a faster rate (1.7 percent during 1990-1996) than the state

as a whole (0.9 percent during 1990-1996) with 44 percent of the State’s

1.2 million people living here (State Planning Office, 2000).

The coastal counties of Maine comprised 56% of employment in 2001, up

from 53% in 1990. Over 1990-2001, the coastal counties saw employment

grow by more than 18%, compared with only 6.4% in the inland counties.

The coastal counties from York to Washington accounted for nearly 80%

of all the job growth in Maine over 1990-2001. Waldo County (46%) and

Knox County (33%) were the fastest growing in employment. Sagadahoc

County saw a small decline in employment (-5.2%) (Colgan 2001).

Tourism, with the highest percentage along the coast, has also increased

substantially in recent years and is now significant to the Maine economy.

In 2000, nonresident visitors to Maine directly and indirectly generated

$8.8 billion in sales of goods and services, over 116,000 jobs; and $2.5

billion in total payroll (ME Office of Tourism, www.visitmaine.com).

Most certainly, it is the natural beauty, rich natural resources, and diverse

recreational opportunities that draw people to the coast. Likewise, the

need to conserve this rich, natural biodiversity has attracted the Service’s

efforts in wildlife conservation in this area.

Air Quality - Summary

Effects on the Local

and Regional

Economy
Chapter 4

4-20 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Coastal visitors engaged in recreational pursuits generate huge revenues to

the economies of local towns as they purchase equipment, lodging, food,

and guide services in support of their activities. Commercial wildlifeviewing and hunting are two nature-based recreational activities that are

directly affected by Refuge Complex management.

In this section, our discussion focuses on the economic impacts to: 1) local

property taxes and associated revenues from additional Service land

acquisition; 2) tax revenues generated from commercial wildlife viewing; 3) tax revenues generated from hunting; 4) sheep farming; and, 5)

commercial harvest of marine resources. These are the economic entities

we believe would be most directly affected by Refuge Complex

management.

The Service, in partnership with many other conservation organizations, is

an important player in land protection in coastal Maine. Lands acquired by

the Service become part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Besides

Petit Manan Refuge Complex, there are two other refuges along the coast

of Maine: Rachel Carson Refuge, based in Wells, ME, and Moosehorn

Refuge, based in Baring, ME. In this document, we will only be evaluating the impacts from the proposed land acquisition for Petit Manan Refuge. Lands would be acquired by the Service through either fee acquisition or conservation easements, and only from willing sellers.

Service acquisition would withdraw potentially developable, revenuegenerating acreage in respective towns. Since the Federal government

does not pay property taxes, there is a direct net loss to towns in property

tax revenues. We predict the greatest loss in towns where the property

acquired by the Service is zoned residential. On the other hand, it is

important to recognize that the potential to develop a home or business on

offshore islands is tempered by existing state and local environmental

laws that regulate coastline development (Kelley, et al., 1989, Maine Dept.

of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 2000). Unfortunately, it is difficult for us

to predict at this time what limits might be placed on proposed island

development. However, we can predict with some accuracy the loss of

property tax revenue to respective towns.

Still, a reduction in developable acreage does not necessarily equate to a

net economic loss to local towns. Several studies question the common

assumption that development always provides greater economic benefits

than conservation (Cheney, 1993, Freedgood, 1993, Infante, 1994, Maine

Coast Heritage Trust, 1991). They suggest that lands reserved in open

space for conservation may actually have higher net revenues because of

their low- to no-demand on infrastructure services. Conservation ownership has been found to result in reduced needs for services such as police,

fire, roads, utilities, and school facilities, all of which could offset property tax losses.

Property Taxes and

Associated Revenues
Effects on the Local and Regional Economy

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-21

While the Service does not pay property taxes, under Federal law, a town

which hosts a national wildlife refuge is entitled to annual Refuge Revenue Sharing (RRS) payments. These payments are the greater of 75 cents

per acre or $.075 of market value. The exact amount of the annual payment depends on Congressional appropriations, which in recent years, has

tended to be less than the full amount. In 2001, the actual payment was

51.89% of authorized levels. That year, the Service paid $51,134 to Maine

communities for lands under administration of Petit Manan Refuge Complex. Interestingly, in rural areas of low growth, the RRS payments can be

equal to, or even exceed, the amount that would have been collected from

taxes if in private ownership. In many areas, such as the Maine coast

where development pressures are high, RRS payments on developable

land are typically less than revenues that would have accrued from taxation.

In order to analyze property tax losses to affected towns with our refuge

expansion proposals, and the offset gained from RRS payments, we

enlisted Dr. Charles Colgan, Professor of Public Policy, University of

Southern Maine, to help us. His full report is included as Appendix G.

What follows is a summary of his assessment of the net reduction in

revenues to towns associated with the proposed refuge expansion of

additional islands. This analysis was done by alternative. There was no

analysis done for Alternative D, since we are not proposing an expansion

from what is currently approved.

The analysis of property tax impacts does include those islands and sites

where the Service proposes to protect bald eagle nesting sites. In these

cases, the Service would purchase up to 125 acres surrounding the nest

site. Because precise sites and properties for potential acquisition have not

been identified, it was not possible to calculate the property tax impacts in

the same manner as was done with the islands purchased in their entirety.

Purchase of these sites would increase the property tax impacts in the

towns of Vinalhaven, Isleboro, Isle Au Haut, Bar Harbor, Mt Desert, and

Jonesboro.

Alternative A (Current Management)

Service acquisition of 30 islands would result in property tax impacts that

are quite small. We were able to get assessed values on all but one of

them. If all islands proposed in Alternative A for which assessed value is

available are acquired, property taxes rise in the affected towns by a total

of $31,000; an overall average of 0.04% per town assuming RRS payments

occur at FY02 levels. This figure is the net of RRS payments at 52% of

authorized levels. The town with the largest impact would be Matinicus

Isle Plantation in Knox County which would see a 3.5% increase in its mil

rate; however, the actual loss is only slightly more than $3,450.
Chapter 4

4-22 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Alternative B (Service’s Preferred Alternative)

Service acquisition of 87 islands would result in property tax impacts that

are predicted to be small. We were able to obtain assessed values on 84 of

these islands. If all islands proposed in Alternative B for which assessed

value is available are acquired, property taxes would potentially rise in the

affected towns by approximately $130,000; an overall average of 0.05%

per town assuming RRS payments occur at FY02 levels. This figure is the

net of RRS payments at 52% of authorized levels. The Town of Kittery in

York County would see the largest absolute reduction in taxes at $30,738,

while the Town of Frenchboro in Hancock County would be most affected

in proportional terms. Data on two of the three islands proposed for

acquisition in Frenchboro was available, and should these islands be

acquired, there would be an estimated increase of 9% in Frenchboro’s mil

rate, although the total taxes lost amount to approximately $6,300 after

RRS payments. The increase in mil rate for Frenchboro would be even

higher if all three islands proposed are acquired by the Service. Appendix

G identifies the 3 islands that were not included in this analysis, and the

towns that would be additionally impacted.

Alternative C

Under Alternative C, the Service would acquire up to 130 islands in fee or

conservation easement and, on up to 21 larger islands (>200 acres) significant for bald eagle nesting, the Service would only acquire approximately

125 acres surrounding the nest sites. We were able to obtain assessed

values on 132 of the islands proposed for acquisition in fee or easement. If

all islands proposed in Alternative C for which assessed value is available

are acquired, property taxes rise in the affected towns by approximately

$225,000; an overall average of 0.08% assuming RRS payments occur at

FY02 levels. Similar to Alternative B, the Town of Kittery in York County

would see the largest absolute reduction in taxes at $30,738, while the

Town of Frenchboro in Hancock County would be most affected in proportional terms. The impact in the Town of Frenchboro is the same as

Alternative B. Appendix G identifies the 19 islands that were not included

in this analysis, and the towns that would be additionally impacted.

Alternative D

No impacts are predicted as no expansion is proposed.

In Chapter 3-Affected Environment, we describe the status and significance of the commercial and recreational seabird viewing industry in

Maine, since it benefits directly from Refuge Complex seabird management. Two islands within the Refuge Complex are currently the focus of

tour boat trips to view coastal nesting seabirds: Petit Manan and Cross

islands. Machias Seal Island, which we manage under an MOU with

MDIFW, is a third island popular for commercial seabird viewing tours.

Wildlife Viewing
Effects on the Local and Regional Economy

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-23

We enlisted Dr. Charles Colgan to analyze the revenues generated from

this activity and the impacts refuge management might have on this

activity. His analysis, further described in Chapter 3, determined that

$5-10 million in commercial seabird viewing related spending occurred in

2001 in Maine. When we asked Dr. Colgan whether or not the commercial

seabird-viewing industry could continue to grow, he responded that it is

probably at its maximum potential given the present distribution of active

seabird colonies with sufficient numbers of birds to make a commercial

trip worthwhile. In other words, unless seabirds establish new colonies,

accessible for viewing by commercial tour boats, there are no new expansion opportunities for a commercial venture, except perhaps more boats to

islands currently on tour.

Dr. Colgan’s 1996 survey, described in Chapter 3, presents the scope of

recreational seabird viewing and its importance in regional economic

terms. However, because seabird recreation takes place throughout the

coastal region, and because birds range over the same area, it is not possible to assign a specific economic value to a specific nesting island or

even group of islands. This makes it impossible to differentiate the effects

of alternative nesting habitat protection strategies from an economic value

perspective. It is clear that protection of habitat will significantly contribute to the maintenance and expansion of this recreational activity, with its

attendant benefits to individuals and firms, into the future. It is also the

case that loss of habitat will, over time, degrade the resource upon which

these benefits depend. The pace and extent of this degradation cannot be

forecast.

While the total economic value, and the level of economic activity, associated with seabird recreation is substantial, assessing the impacts of specific protection strategies creates some difficulties. Economic costs will

also be associated with protection efforts, since an important element of

habitat protection will be to restrict access to islands with significant sea

bird nesting habitat during the summer, which is also the prime time for

recreation. This will limit the recreational activities of some, decreasing to

some degree their recreational values. This is particularly likely to be the

case for members of the Maine Island Trail Association, who visit the

islands for general recreation purposes. Thus, there will be some loss of

recreational economic benefits to those who visit islands directly. The

exact losses cannot be estimated, but will depend upon:

■ which islands are chosen for protection;

■ the extent of restrictions on activity; and,

■ the extent to which alternative islands which would provide the same or

slightly lower benefits are available.

Lost Economic Benefits
Chapter 4

4-24 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Alternative A (Current Management)

No new seabird colonies would be established under Alternative A; therefore, no new seabird viewing opportunities would result. Existing restoration sites would continue to be managed, maintaining the current industry.

As such, there would be no impacts to the current economic outputs

contributed by the seabird viewing industry directly resulting from Refuge

Complex management.

Alternative B (Service’s Preferred Alternative)

Alternative B would include 6 new seabird restoration sites. At a minimum, at least one of these sites would met the criteria for size, distribution, access, and location needed for a viable commercial venture. However, it is important to note that we estimate it would be at least 8-10 years

before a new colony with sufficient numbers of birds would be established

to make a commercial venture worthwhile. This is due to the time needed

to acquire the island, complete the restoration work necessary to make the

island attractive to seabirds, and build the seabird population in that

colony. As such, benefits to the commercial seabird industry would not

occur to a significant degree in the short-term.

Alternative C

Alternative C would include 12 new restoration sites, creating the most

opportunities for additional seabird viewing businesses over the longterm. We would expect at least two sites would meet the criteria for a

viable commercial venture. However, as with Alternative B, it would take

at least 8-10 years to get a colony established.

Alternative D

No new seabird colonies would be established under Alternative D. In

fact, management of the existing colony at Petit Manan Island would be

scaled back, with less intervention and habitat manipulation. Over the long

term, this would likely lead to a decrease in nesting habitat quality for

those seabirds requiring short vegetation. Gull nesting and predation

would likely increase as a result, and with no predator control, most

seabirds would abandon the site within the 15 year planning horizon.

While it is possible the birds would move to a new location, in all likelihood, seabird viewing opportunities would be lost over the long-term at

Petit Manan Island.

Hunting is another nature-based recreational activity generating substantial revenues in Maine, and is supported on the Refuge Complex. Currently, migratory game bird and waterfowl, small game, and big game

hunting is offered on refuge lands as described in Chapter 3. Also of note

Hunting
Effects on the Local and Regional Economy

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-25

is the fact that the Massachusetts Colonial Ordinance of 1649 reserves a

broadly construed right for public use of privately-owned intertidal zones

for hunting, fishing, and fowling. As a result, waterfowl hunting occurs

within the intertidal areas of most of the Refuge Complex islands under

the jurisdiction of the state, and is administered by the MDIFW.

Nationally, hunting participation is decreasing. This is also true for the

State of Maine, as evidenced by the sales of hunting licenses. According to

Boyle and Teisl (1998), sales of Maine hunting licenses declined by 1.7%

between 1986 and 1996. It is primarily small game hunting that is declining in Maine; big game and migratory bird hunting has stayed relatively

flat in terms of the number of hunters and number of hunting days (USFWS

2002). According to Service statistics, the average hunter in Maine is

spending $327/trip for a big game hunt, $167/trip for a small game hunt,

and $222/trip for a migratory bird hunt (USFWS 2002). The expenditures

are related to lodging, food, gas, and equipment. The types of hunters are

distributed as follows: 39% waterfowl, 7% other migrating birds, 25%

upland game, and 29% big game.

Unfortunately, we have no census of hunter numbers for the Refuge

Complex; however, we estimate approximately 280 hunter days occur

during the mainland hunting seasons based on our field observations.

Using the expenditures listed above, this would translate to $66,710 in

revenue to the local economy. However, we believe that the amount is

overstated, because most of the Refuge Complex hunters are local. Out-ofstate hunters are likely to seek more productive and accessible hunting

areas off Refuge Complex lands which offer a greater likelihood of success. In our opinion, hunting on the Refuge Complex is not contributing

significantly to the local economy.

With regards to off-shore waterfowl hunting, it would be inaccurate to

claim all the benefits of waterfowl hunting around Refuge Complex

islands, as most hunters are operating from boats in the inter-tidal area

and are floating on and off Service-owned lands. Furthermore, it is virtually impossible to estimate waterfowl hunter numbers tied directly to

Refuge Complex lands. As such, we did not analyze this contribution

further.

Alternative A (Current Management)

Under Alternative A there would be no change in hunting opportunities

from what is currently offered. The program includes migratory game,

waterfowl, and small and big game on Sawyers Marsh and Gouldsboro

Bay divisions; white-tailed deer hunting on Bois Bubert Island; and,

migratory waterfowl hunting on 22 islands. As we describe above, we

believe our program would not contribute significantly to the local

economy.
Chapter 4

4-26 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Alternative B (Service’s Preferred Alternative)

Under Alternative B, we would open the Petit Manan Point Division to

white-tailed deer hunting in addition to the hunting offered in Alternative A.

We predict this would provide approximately 114 new hunter days. This is

based on our estimate that 30 new hunters would partake in the firearms

season at 3 days each, and 6 hunters would participate in the archery

season at 4 days each. Using the expenditures/trip noted above, this new

opportunity would generate approximately $11,772 in hunter revenues (36

hunters x $327/trip) above what was predicted in Alternative A. However,

as described in Alternative A, this is likely overstated since most hunters

would continue to be local, so there would be no lodging, and little food

and gas expenditures. This is a relatively insignificant contribution to the

local economy. Generally, the benefits from this new opportunity are more

social, providing local hunters with a new hunting area. In the short term,

Petit Manan Point would offer a high quality hunt, with hunter numbers

low and success rate high, since it has been closed to hunting for years and

deer are congregating here. However, over the long term we would expect

the success rate to decline as deer disperse, resulting in the low densities

common to the coastal area.

In addition, we would evaluate the potential for waterfowl hunting opportunities on all 87 islands proposed for Service acquisition. In general, we

plan to open the islands to waterfowl hunting unless we determine there

are overriding resource concerns unforseen at this time. We do not know

at this time whether or not the current landowners allow public hunting,

but because of the State’s Colonial Ordinance allowing hunting in all

intertidal areas, we suspect that it is occurring on most islands. As such,

we would not effectively be offering new hunting opportunities with

Service acquisition of coastal islands.

Alternative C

Same as Alternative B, except we would evaluate waterfowl hunting on all

151 islands proposed for Service acquisition.

Alternative D

Under Alternative D we would not allow hunting on Refuge Complex

lands. While the economic losses to the local economy would be negligible, there would be social costs to local hunters who would lose the

small game and big game hunting opportunities on the Gouldsboro Bay

and Sawyers Marsh divisions, and big game hunting on Bois Bubert

Island. Waterfowl hunting would not likely be affected because of the

intertidal Colonial Ordinance that reserves the public right to hunting in

these areas.
Effects on the Local and Regional Economy

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-27

Sheep farming has occurred on certain Maine islands for generations. It is

considered an historic and traditional cultural use by many residents of

Maine. As we describe in Chapter 3 in the island descriptions, there are

two Refuge Complex islands, Metinic and Little Nash islands, where

sheep grazing is occurring. On Metinic Island, half the island is owned by

the Service and most of the remaining portion is owned by a private

landowner who leases his land to a shepherd. On Little Nash Island, sheep

walk from the adjacent Big Nash Island at low tide. In most years, there

are approximately 120 sheep on Metinic and 30 sheep on Little Nash islands,

respectively. Since the private landowners do not fence, it is incumbent on

us to install fencing to manage the sheep on the islands. We have incorporated sheep grazing into our vegetation management program for nesting

seabirds on Metinic Island. Our monitoring has indicated that the current

situation appears to be providing suitable nesting habitat for the terns.

Although locally important as a traditional and historic cultural use, these

two sheep operations represent a negligible contribution to the State’s sheep

industry, and to the local economy, when compared to other coastal industries.

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, sheep grazing on Metinic Island would continue to

be used for vegetation management. On Little Nash Island, we would

continue to monitor the grazing, but not otherwise implement a change. As

such, there would be no economic impacts to the current operators or the

local economy as no change would occur.

Alternative B

Under Alternative B, sheep grazing on Metinic and Little Nash islands

would be used for vegetation management, but only under special use

permit stipulating numbers, timing, and intensity. In addition, we would

consider sheep grazing on future island acquisitions where we determine it can be used to

effectively manage vegetation in support of

our habitat goals. Under this alternative, the

individual sheep operators may incur additional expenses to adhere to permit requirements, but we would not expect costs to be

prohibitive or cause an operator to fail. While

we expect new opportunities for sheep grazing

would occur with future island acquisitions,

we cannot predict where or when with any

certainty. With implementation of Alternative

B, there would be little to no adverse impact to

the current sheep operators, and no effect on

the local economy.

Sheep Farming

Sheep grazing on Metinic Island

USFWS photo
Chapter 4

4-28 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Alternative C

Same as Alternative B.

Alternative D

Alternative D we would eliminate sheep grazing from the Service-owned

portions of Metinic and Little Nash islands. With a loss in access to these

lands, we predict that shepherds would be forced to modify their operations, possibly by reducing herd size or establishing more human presence

on the islands. In either case, some economic burden would be incurred by

the sheep owners and/or operators. However, because these operations are

so few and small, their loss would not result in any impact to the local

economy.

The harvesting of plants and animals for commercial purposes in the

intertidal and near-shore zones in coastal Maine is not only significant to

the State’s economy, but is also a traditional and historic way of life in

many coastal communities. Harvesting marine resources on and adjacent

to refuge lands occurred well before the Refuge Complex was established.

Intertidal resources that are harvested include: clams, mussels, oysters,

and marine worms. In addition, lobstering and salmon aquaculture are

probably the best known commercial marine industries, occurring in

offshore State-waters. Seaweed harvesting is also becoming a more viable

industry as harvesting equipment improves and seaweed processing

centers become established. Rockweed is the common name given to the

fucoid seaweeds and usually refers to the knotted wrack (Ascophyllum

nodosum).

Intertidal zones provide abundant habitat for many invertebrate species

that are important food sources for migratory birds. These areas serve as

foraging sites for tens of thousands of migratory shorebirds and waterfowl. Currently, we have no documentation on the level of harvest or the

numbers of harvesters using the Refuge Complex intertidal areas. Monitoring the level of use and harvest is needed to determine how Federal

trust resources are affected.

With regard to the increasing commercial interest in rockweed harvest,

there is a concern by many people, including scientists, about the shortterm and long-term effects of unregulated harvesting of a plant so vital to

many birds and marine wildlife. The invertebrates that cling to rockweed

are an incredible source of nutrients to many migrating shorebirds and

waterfowl. Rockweed filters nutrients and contaminants, produces oxygen,

and recycles nutrients. In Maine, the Department of Marine Resources has

adopted regulations to allow for a sustainable harvest; however, in our

opinion, monitoring and enforcement to prevent over- harvesting is not

commensurate with the use. Rockweed and other seaweed harvesting is

Commercial Harvest of

Marine Resources
Effects on the Local and Regional Economy

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-29

not allowed in Refuge Complex intertidal zones because no commercial

collection of vegetation is allowed on national wildlife refuges, the activity is not considered appropriate in light of the Refuge Complex purposes

and is not supported by a compatibility determination.

As described under waterfowl hunting, the State Colonial Ordinance of

1649 reserves a broadly construed right for the public to use privately

owned intertidal zones for fishing, fowling, and navigation. We recognize

this ordinance and allow harvest of shellfish and worms in Refuge Complex intertidal areas. Although our ability to monitor these activities is

limited, we do have the authority to eliminate these activities on Refuge

Complex lands if we determine Federal trust resources are adversely

impacted, such as at seabird or bald eagle nesting sites.

In Chapter 3, we describe the status of the finfish and shellfish aquaculture

industries and their contribution to the State and local economy. In 2000,

the salmon aquaculture industry generated $78.9 million; and in 2001, the

lobstering industry produced a market value of $151.9 million.

The future of Maine’s salmon aquaculture industry is uncertain, and some

predict it will decline. The continued outbreaks of the highly infectious

salmon anemia, foreign competition, Federal listing of the endangered

Atlantic salmon, and a lengthy leasing process are all contributing to the

uncertainty. All of these factors are outside of the influence of the Refuge

Complex.

In Chapter 1, we describe why some people view Service ownership as a

potential threat to aquaculture, and commercial fishing and lobstering

operations. In general, industry supporters believe that Service acquisition

would result in restrictions or limits on operations in State- adjacent

waters. In fact, the Service has no direct authority over these operations

and can not unilaterally impose restrictions. On the other hand, if a Federal trust species, such as an endangered or threatened species, could be

impacted, then the Service will initiate Section 7 consultations under the

Endangered Species Act. Commercial finfishing and shellfishing is regulated by the State. Aquaculture leases are issued by the U.S. ACOE and

State of Maine.

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, there would be no change in opportunity for commercial harvest of shellfish and worms. Harvesting rockweed would be

eliminated on the intertidal areas surrounding the1,274 acres proposed for

Service acquisition. We do not know the extent of the opportunity lost, or

its economic impact, because we have not surveyed for rockweed in these

areas, nor monitored levels of harvesting.

We do not anticipate any measurable impacts on the salmon aquaculture

or lobstering industries from either Service acquisition of new islands or
Chapter 4

4-30 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Refuge Complex management in general. No existing aquaculture facilities

would be impacted near existing Refuge Complex lands. Indirect benefits to

these industries may be realized through the permanent protection of natural

areas, but we have no way to quantify this benefit. There are no active

aquaculture leases on record in the vicinity of lands proposed for acquisition.

Alternative B

Under Alternative B, the impacts would be the same as Alternative A,

except there are 2,859 acres proposed for acquisition, including 87 nationally significant nesting islands that would be added to the Refuge Complex boundary. Rockweed harvesting would be eliminated on these islands, but we do not know the extent of this economic loss. Impacts to

salmon and lobstering industries are the same as predicted in Alternative A.

Alternative C

Under Alternative C, the impacts would be the same as Alternative B,

except there are approximately 6,310 acres proposed for acquisition,

including all or portions of 151 nationally significant nesting islands that

would be added to the Refuge Complex boundary. As with Alternative B,

all islands would be closed to rockweed harvesting, although we cannot

predict the impact to this industry because we have no baseline information. There are four finfish leases and two shellfish leases on record near

to islands proposed for acquisition. At this writing, our information indicates that three of the finfish leased operations (Little Black, Great Waas,

and Little River islands) are more than 1/4 mile from nesting areas, and

the two shellfish operations (French House and Treasure islands) are low

intensity with no anticipated impacts. Only one of the finfish operations

may be a concern to us (Treat Island), but only if a new or expanded

facility is proposed within 1/4 mile of the bald eagle nesting site. Given

that Service acquisition of Treat Island is speculative at the current time,

and no direct impacts are predicted to this or the other 5 leased operations,

and because of the external influences we described in Chapter 1 (Re:

Issues Outside the Scope of this CCP/EIS, Issue #1) and Chapter 3, we do

not expect any impacts to current operations over the short-term. Also,

given these current external influences on the industry, and the uncertainty

of how they would affect the industry as a whole, and/or individual operations, we did not further evaluate long-term impacts from our respective,

proposed actions.

Alternative D

Same as Alternative A, except there are only 467.1 acres within the currently approved boundary that would be acquired; no expansion is proposed.
Effects on the Local and Regional Economy

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-31

Overall property tax losses to towns is greatest in Alternative C because it

proposes the largest Refuge Complex expansion, followed by Alternative

B, then A. There is no property tax loss in Alternative D since no expansion is proposed.

Alternative C would possibly result in two new commercial seabird

viewing opportunities, while Alternative B would possibly result in one

new opportunity. We would maintain current opportunities with implementation of Alternative A, and there would be a loss of opportunity on

Petit Manan island with implementation of Alternative D.

Alternatives B and C would effectively provide the greatest increases in

hunting opportunity and associated revenues. An approximate increase of

114 hunter days is predicted with either alternative, generating an additional $11,772 to the local economy. There would be no change in hunter

opportunity or revenues generated with Alternative A. Alternative D

proposes to eliminate hunting, so it would result in a total loss of hunter

opportunity and revenues generated.

None of the alternatives would appreciably impact Maine’s sheep industry; however, the two local sheep operators would be most impacted by

Alternative D as it would cause them to modify their operations and incur

some expenses in doing so.

It is difficult to predict with any certainty the potential impacts on the

lobstering or aquaculture industries since our recommendations for a 1/4

mile no-activity buffer are not always incorporated into ACOE permits.

However, Alternative C, which proposes the largest Refuge Complex

expansion, has the greatest potential to impact the industry. At present, we

know of six aquaculture leases which have been issued off islands proposed for acquisition in this alternative. Alternative B has the next highest

potential to impact the industry because of the expansion proposed, although no aquaculture leases have been issued next to proposed islands.

Alternative A follows next, although no leases are known. No impact

would result from Alternative D.

Local and Regional

Economy - Summary

Aquaculture pens at Cross Island

USFWS photo
Chapter 4

4-32 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

As described previously, coastal Maine is a major attraction for outdoor

enthusiasts. While the Refuge Complex is not typically the principal

destination in and of itself, it does enhance the coastal experience by

offering public access to a premiere setting with outstanding opportunities

for wildlife-dependent recreational activities. Since Refuge Complex lands

are held in the public trust by the Service, access is ensured for these

activities unless Federal trust resources would be impacted. In addition,

the State Colonial Ordinance of 1649 grants easement to the public over

intertidal lands for the purpose of fishing, fowling, or navigation. Refuge

Complex lands are open to the following priority, wildlife-dependent

public uses: hunting, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We have never officially opened the

Refuge Complex to fishing as freshwater fishing opportunities are so few

or low quality, and there has been no public interest. The surf fishing

generally occurs in the intertidal area, where the State ordinance is recognized.

Total visitation on the Refuge Complex in 2002 was estimated to be

approximately 47,000 visitors; 19,000 visitors on the mainland divisions

units, and 28,000 to the islands or surrounding waters.

The mainland divisions are open year round from sunrise to sunset. We

currently maintain two interpretive hiking trails, the Hollingsworth Memorial Trail (1.5 miles) and the Birch Point Trail (four miles round-trip),

both on the Petit Manan Point Division. The Hollingsworth Trail has

parking for approximately eight cars; the Birch Point Trial has parking for

approximately 10 cars. The only universally accessible facility on the

Refuge Complex is an informational kiosk on the Petit Manan Point

Division. The Gouldsboro Bay and Sawyer’s Marsh divisions contain old

logging roads that are passable by foot but have no designated trails or

parking lots.

Of the 28,000 visitors to the Refuge Complex

islands during 2002, 24,000 of these visitors

only experienced them aboard commercial tour

boats. With the exception of Machias Seal

Island, these tour boat visits do not involve

landing on the islands. We estimated that the

remaining 4,000 visitors land on Refuge

Complex islands, typically by kayak or canoe.

In order to minimize disturbance to nesting

birds, the Refuge Complex’s seabird nesting

islands are closed to public use from April 1 -

August 31 each year. In addition, four active

bald eagle nesting islands are closed to public

access from February 15 - August 31. Four

historic bald eagle nesting islands are also

Effects to Public

Access, Educational

and Recreational

Opportunities

Nash Island Lighthouse

USFWS photo
Effects on Public Access, Educational and Recreational Opportunities

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-33

closed to public access from February 15 - August 31, but may be open

after May 1 if no nesting occurs. While island closures limit the public’s

access during the popular spring and summer tourist seasons, all islands

(except Seal Island) are open in the early fall, when weather still allows

visitation.

Cross, Scotch, and Bois Bubert islands, along with a portion of Halifax

Island, are open year round because they do not support nesting seabirds.

Most of Halifax Island is closed year round to protect botanical resources.

Seal Island is also closed to all public uses year round due to unexploded

ordnance.

Some popular activities are not compatible and are prohibited by Refuge

Complex regulations. Activities prohibited include seaweed harvesting,

collecting balsam fir branches for making Christmas wreaths, use of offroad vehicles, and open fires. While leashed dogs are permitted on the

Refuge Complex mainland, dogs are prohibited on Refuge Complex

islands. Local residents expressed concern when these restrictions were

first implemented, but complaints have diminished in recent years. Public

trapping has never been allowed on Refuge Complex lands.

Two Refuge Complex islands are part of the MITA trail: Bois Bubert and

Halifax islands. Campers must obtain a permit from either MITA, who

administers this program as a service to their members, or the Refuge

Complex headquarters. All campers receive information on practicing

“Leave No Trace” principles. In addition, MITA has a very effective

campaign within their membership to reinforce and promote these stewardship principles through literature, other media, and through personal

contacts while monitoring the sites. Our experience monitoring these two

refuge island campsites validates that “Leave No Trace” principles are

usually followed.

Impacts from Proposed Land Acquisition and Protection

Implementation of Alternative A includes Service acquisition of 467.1

acres within Petit Manan Refuge’s approved boundary and another 30

nationally significant coastal nesting islands. At this time, we do not know

whether these private island owners currently allow public access. Our

observations indicate that some island owners tolerate a low level of day

use activities, but do not approve of extensive use of their islands, nor

would they allow camping. Most absentee owners probably do not know

the extent of activities on their island. It is also possible that some of the

islands proposed for acquisition under this alternative are effectively

closed to all public access.

All islands proposed for acquisition under this alternative support nesting

seabirds or eagles, and would therefore be closed to public access during

the peak visitation season. Without knowing for certain what current

owners allow in terms of public use, we are unable to quantify this impact

Alternative A (Current

Management)
Chapter 4

4-34 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

on visitors. In addition, it is important to recognize that not all 30 proposed islands are within reach of many recreational boaters and have

accessible landing sites. Therefore, it is an overstatement to suggest

Service acquisition would represent a lost opportunity on all 30 islands.

We would expect that the biggest adverse impact to visitors would be the

restricted access to undeveloped islands with landing sites and within 5

miles of shore. Islands beyond 5 miles from shoreline are generally too far

for kayakers and canoeists. On the other hand, Service acquisition would

allow legal, approved access to these same islands during the fall months.

Impacts from Proposed Public Use and Access Management

With implementation of Alternative A, we project a 10% increase in

annual visitation over the next 15 years based on regional tourism trends,

increased Service land acquisition, and planned visitor services activities.

This would result in an additional 4,700 visitors/year; approximately

2,400 of whom would be taking part in commercial tours, 400 of whom

would visit refuge islands on their own, and 1,900 of whom would visit

the mainland. We do not anticipate that this increase would adversely

affect resources or use or enjoyment by current visitors because most of

the increased use is on boat tours and because of our proposed increase in

the land base. The increases projected for other refuge islands and the

mainland would be well-distributed and primarily associated with organized Refuge Complex programs.

There is an increasing local demand for outreach and environmental

education programs as evidenced by the numerous requests we receive,

increased regional tourism, and the growth of coastal populations. Alternative A would continue to provide limited environmental education and

outreach. These include taking part in local fairs, talks to local organizations, newspaper articles, and providing refuge

brochures to chambers of commerce and

highway information centers.

Under Alternative A, we would also maintain

our environmental education partnerships with

Chewonki Foundation, Damariscotta River

Association, National Audubon Society, and

Hurricane Island Outward Bound School.

Humboldt Research Station would continue to

use refuge lands as an outdoor classroom and

laboratory. The Friends of Maine Seabird

Islands, a newly formed Refuge Complex

Friends Group, would continue to assist us

with outreach activities. While these important

activities would continue, our current staff

would not be able to meet even the current

demand for outreach and educational programs.

Public education may reduce illegal ATV use

USFWS photo
Effects on Public Access, Educational and Recreational Opportunities

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-35

Alternative A would continue to provide mainland infrastructure for

wildlife observation and photography on the Petit Manan Point Division,

with access provided by the refuge road and two trails. This alternative

would not expand parking or trails, and weekend visitors would often

continue to find parking lots filled and the quality of their visit reduced

because mainland visitors are concentrated on this unit’s two interpretive

trails. The islands (except Seal) would continue to be accessible for

wildlife observation and photography outside of closure periods. Commercial photographers would continue to be allowed access to closed areas by

special use permit only.

We would continue to provide the current level of interpretative programs.

Similar to our other programs, the demands for interpretive programs

would exceed our ability to meet them. The existing informational kiosks

would be maintained at the Petit Manan Point Division and new kiosks

would be built at refuge offices in Rockport and Milbridge as planned.

Two to three staff- and volunteer-led interpretive programs would occur

on Refuge Complex and partner lands each year. A summer interpretive

intern would be hired for Petit Manan Point Division. Interpretive signs

would also be developed for Halifax Island focusing on the rare plant

communities. While these actions would improve our current programs,

we would not be able to meet all requests for programs.

Alternative A would maintain current hunting opportunities on Sawyers

Marsh and Gouldsboro Bay divisions and the 22 islands. Local hunters

and MDIFW have expressed an interest is seeing us expand our hunting

opportunities to the Petit Manan Point Division. Since Petit Manan Point

would remain closed to hunting under Alternative A, we would not be

fulfilling this request.

Alternative A would continue to allow blueberry picking for personal use

only. Hand raking of blueberries would not be permitted to ensure some

berries are left for wildlife. This restriction has been accepted by the

public, and has generally been adhered to. Further, there are many other

local places open to the public where more intensive harvesting could

occur.

The MDIFW has previously requested we open the Refuge Complex

mainland divisions to furbearer trapping. The islands were not suggested

because they do not have viable furbearer populations. Under Alternative

A, public trapping would not be allowed on existing or proposed Refuge

Complex lands. Trapping would only occur for management purposes and

would be conducted only by professional contracted trappers or our staff.

With our existing knowledge of the mainland tracts proposed for acquisition, we do not believe that any of the current owners allows public

trapping. As such, there would be no net loss of trapping opportunities

with proposed Service land acquisition; however, there would continue to

be an unmet request of MDIFW’s by not allowing it on existing Refuge

Complex lands.
Chapter 4

4-36 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Impacts from Proposed Vegetation and Habitat Management

Under Alternative A, we would continue to maintain the blueberry and

grass fields along the entrance road at the Petit Manan Point Division,

enhancing wildlife viewing opportunities and providing the public easy

access to blueberries for personal use. The vegetation and habitat activities

conducted on Refuge Complex islands is specifically designed to enhance

nesting habitat for seabirds. This has a direct and positive benefit to the

quality of wildlife viewing opportunities, especially to the commercial

seabird viewing tours.

Impacts from Proposed Wildlife Populations Management

Managing the six seabird colonies that are visible to commercial tour

boats or recreational boaters provides a unique wildlife observation and

photography experience. The seabird viewing opportunity on Machias

Seal Island, which we cooperatively manage, is unrivaled in the lower 48

States. No adverse impacts are predicted to public use and access from

this program.

Impacts from Proposed Land Acquisition and Protection

Alternative B would result in Service acquisition of 467.1 acres within the

Petit Manan Refuge’s approved boundary and the addition of 87 nationally

significant nesting islands and 153.3 acres of mainland. Similar to Alternative A, we do not know whether the current landowners allow public

access. All of these islands proposed for acquisition would have a seasonal

closure, as described under Alternative A. The island closures would be

implemented during the peak visitor season, as all the islands support

either nesting seabirds or bald eagles. However, under Alternative B, there

would be one modification to the seasonal closure dates. On islands where

only gulls and eiders are nesting, we would allow day use access to begin

on July 31 rather than August 31. This change would be consistent with

MDIFW island closure periods and would provide the public with an

additional month for day use activities on 9 Refuge Complex islands and 6

islands proposed for acquisition. This change would directly benefit kayak

and canoe enthusiasts.

As described in Alternative A, not all 87 islands proposed for acquisition

are accessible to boaters, especially to kayakers and canoeists, because of

their distance from shoreline and the lack of suitable landing sites. As

such, it is an overstatement to suggest that public access opportunities

would be lost with seasonal closures on all 87 islands. Further, we suggest

that Service acquisition may actually afford legal access, in the fall months,

to many islands where it may not have been allowed previously by a

private landowner.

Alternative B (Service’s

Preferred Alternative)
Effects on Public Access, Educational and Recreational Opportunities

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-37

Impacts from Proposed Public Use and Access Management

Under Alternative B, we project a 25% increase in annual visitation over

the next 15 years, representing an additional 11,750 people/year over

current visitation. In total, we estimate that 58,750 people would visit the

Refuge Complex annually; approximately 13,750 would visit the mainland; 30,000 would engage in commercial seabird tours; and 5,000 would

visit islands on their own. On the mainland, we predict that most of this

increase would result from developing new interpretive and environmental

education programs for schools and other groups. On the islands, the

increase would be due to the fact that more islands are included in the

Refuge Complex. Our visitor capacity is greatly expanded with these

additional 87 islands, and we do not anticipate that this increase would

adversely affect resources or the use and enjoyment by current visitors.

We would implement monitoring strategies to ensure resource damage

does not occur, and to evaluate visitor satisfaction.

Under Alternative B, we would increase our environmental education and

outreach programs and partnerships substantially. We would continue to

explore a partnership with the National Park Service at their Schoodic

Point property which they have converted to a Learning Facility for

research and environmental education. This would also help us foster a

stronger relationship with Acadia National Park. In addition, we would

continue to pursue a new Refuge Complex Administration and Coastal

Education Center in the mid-coast area to further enhance environmental

education opportunities. With full implementation of this alternative, we

believe we would be able to meet most demands for environmental education and outreach.

Opportunities for commercial photographers might be reduced since we

would ensure there is a direct benefit to the Service before issuing a

special use permit. However, amateur nature

photographers would directly benefit from

construction of photo blinds and observation

platforms on the mainland divisions. This new

construction would be accessible to persons

with disabilities, an opportunity new on the

Refuge Complex.

We would be creating access to the Gouldsboro

Bay Division with a designated trail and

expanded parking area with a capacity for 10

cars. This would provide a more inviting area

for a greater number of visitors interested in

wildlife-dependent activities. It would also

alleviate some of the pressure Petit Manan

Point Division receives. We would be able to

distribute mainland visitors better.

Alternative B would substantially increase environmental

programs such as this walking tour

USFWS photo
Chapter 4

4-38 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Under Alternative B, we would create a new opportunity for hunting by

opening up the Petit Manan Point Division to white-tailed deer hunting.

This would satisfy a request from MDIFW and local hunters. For the first

few years, we predict this area would provide a high quality, successful

hunting opportunity. After approximately three years, we expect this

would diminish when the deer no longer feel as secure and disperse to the

lower densities more common along the Maine coast. As a result of opening the area to hunting, public access to the two interpretive trails on Petit

Manan Point may need to be closed during the firearm and muzzle loader

season depending on the number of hunters. We predict that approximately 200 non-hunting visitors would be impacted from Monday through

Saturday during late October to early December if we determine the trails

must be closed for public safety. On Sundays there is no hunting allowed

in the State.

The new trail and parking area on the Gouldsboro Bay Division would

also facilitate access and parking to this popular waterfowl hunting area.

All islands and mainland property acquired under this alternative would be

opened to waterfowl hunting unless restricted by deed. As we described

previously, the Colonial Ordinance allows “fowling” in intertidal areas, so

our actions would not appreciably increase the amount of area open to

waterfowl hunting.

Under Alternative B, we would continue existing camping opportunities

on Bois Bubert and Halifax islands by permit-reservation with cooperation

from MITA, Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands, and other partners. We

would utilize this partnership to develop and implement a monitoring

program that would identify threshold limits of island usage. Five islands

we propose to acquire under this alternative are currently part of the

Maine Island Trail. Three of the islands are currently day use only, while

two also allow camping. If acquired by the Service, all would be subject to

a seasonal closure to protect wildlife and habitat. Access for day use

would only be allowed outside the nesting season. In addition, we would

close these islands to camping year round. These restrictions would likely

necessitate that MITA administrators seek alternative sites to ensure the

trail has no gaps. Implementation of Alternative B would negatively affect

MITA trail users until alternative sites can be located. We expect members

of MITA would be inconvenienced by this action.

Under Alternative B, we would not allow public trapping. The impacts

would be similar to those described under Alternative A.

Impacts from Proposed Vegetation and Habitat Management

Under Alternative B we would continue to maintain the blueberry and

grass fields as described in Alternative A. The increased habitat management proposed in Alternative B would afford new opportunities for
Effects on Public Access, Educational and Recreational Opportunities

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-39

environmental education and interpretation, two programs where demand

is ever increasing. Wildlife viewing and photography would also be

enhanced by managing for habitat and wildlife diversity.

Impacts from Proposed Wildlife Populations Management

We would establish six new seabird restoration projects, providing increased opportunities for both recreational and commercial tour boat

operators to view wildlife in new sections of the coast. Distance from

shore, proximity to population centers, and seabird colony size and species

present would most likely dictate how well these new sites provide an

opportunity. A new opportunity would not likely be realized for at least 8

years, the length of time we think it would take for a seabird colony to get

established.

Impacts from Proposed Land Acquisition and Protection

Alternative C would result in Service acquisition of all, or portions of, 151

unprotected nationally significant nesting islands, 153.3 acres of mainland, and 467.1 acres currently within Petit Manan Refuge’s approved

acquisition boundary. Similar to Alternatives A and B, without knowing

the policies of current island landowners, we are not able to fully evaluate

the effects of this action on public access. We anticipate that Service

acquisition could result in greater access to some islands, outside the

nesting season. More likely, however, Service acquisition would limit

access at islands now open for year-round visitation.

Under Alternative C, each Refuge Complex island would be evaluated

separately to determine the most effective public access closure period for

the species nesting on the island. For example, closure periods may extend

outside of the currently used February 15 to August 31 dates, if appropriate, to cover the entire breeding season of all species present. Leach’s

storm-petrels are known to nest into November; so, on islands with these

birds the closure period may not end until November 15. Other changes

may be warranted with new and better information, or as necessary to

protect sensitive areas such as rare or declining plants or habitats. It is

possible that the closure dates could change on an annual basis as we

respond to new information. We predict that frequent changes in closure

periods on a given island, and different closure periods between the

islands, would cause much confusion and inconvenience for visitors. It

would also require us to conduct extensive outreach campaigns each year

to alert people to the changes. We would not expect this strategy to be

favored by our current visitors.

Under Alternative C, acquisition of new islands and the impacts on the

current MITA trail users would be similar to those described for

Alternative B.

Alternative C
Chapter 4

4-40 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Impacts from Proposed Public Use and Access Management

Under Alternative C, we predict a 50% increase in annual visitation over

the next 15 years, representing an additional 23,500 visitors/year over

current levels. In total, we estimate 70,500 people would visit; 28,500

would visit the mainlands; 36,000 would visit on seabird boat tours; and

6,000 would visit the islands on their own. Similar to Alternative B, most

of the increase would be attributed to the expanded land base and increased visitor programs. As with Alternative B, the expanded land base

would disperse use so that we do not anticipate the increase in visitation to

adversely affect resources or the use and enjoyment of individual visitors.

We would also implement monitoring strategies to ensure resource damage does not occur and to evaluate visitor satisfaction.

We would implement new public use infrastructure on the mainland

divisions as proposed in Alternative B. The new trails proposed would

also alleviate some of the pressure that Petit Manan Point Division receives. As with Alternative B, we would be able to distribute mainland

visitors better.

In addition to the new programs described in Alternative B, under Alternative C we would also develop a web-based environmental program

whereby students around the world could view seabirds on refuge islands.

Research data from the restoration islands would be posted on the website

and students would be led through lessons using the data. This would

effectively expand our outreach to a world-wide audience.

By implementing Alternative C, we would evaluate the compatibility of

opening Petit Manan Island and other select islands to photo blind tours. If

this use is found to be compatible with the purpose of the Refuge, it would

be allowed, offering a rare opportunity for the public to view seabirds up

close. In Maine, this opportunity only exists at Machias Seal Island and is

in incredibly high demand. Bird watchers and photographers would

especially benefit from this new opportunity.

Alternative C would result in impacts to waterfowl hunting similar to

Alternative B. We anticipate opening all island property acquired under

this alternative to waterfowl hunting unless restricted by deed. Without

knowing the policies of current island owners, it is difficult to assess the

effects of this action on hunting opportunities.

Bois Bubert and Halifax islands would remain open for camping, as part

of the MITA trail. However, under Alternative C, special use camping

permits would be administered only by our staff. This would allow us to

better monitor the number of users, group size, length of stay, and their

effects on resources. It could potentially result in a reduction in the number of days the area is available for camping. Other impacts to camping

are similar to Alternative B.
Effects on Public Access, Educational and Recreational Opportunities

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-41

Under Alternative C, we would allow public trapping on Petit Manan

Point, Sawyers Marsh and Gouldsboro Bay divisions, and Cross and Bois

Bubert islands according to State and Refuge regulations. No trapping

would be allowed on the three mainland divisions during waterfowl

migration season (September through November) to reduce disturbance to

waterfowl who are congregating on the refuge building reserves for their

southern flight. Trapping for management purposes would continue as

described in Alternative A. This new opportunity satisfies a request from

MDIFW, which is seeking hunting and trapping opportunities on all public

lands where safety and resource concerns are not an issue. We are not

certain as to the number of trappers this would benefit; however, we

would predict less than five trappers would participate.

Impacts from Proposed Vegetation and Habitat Management

Same as Alternative B

Impacts from Proposed Wildlife Populations Management

We would initiate 12 new seabird restoration projects, providing increased

opportunities for both recreational and commercial boat operators to view

wildlife in new sections of the coast. Similar to Alternative B, distance

from shore, proximity to population centers, colony size and species

present would most likely dictate how many of these new sites provide a

new opportunity. As with Alternative B, new opportunities would not

likely be realized for at least 8 years. Under Alternative C, we predict that

2 new viewing sites would become established and result in new destinations for commercial operators.

Impacts from Proposed Land Acquisition and Protection

Under Alternative D, the Service would not acquire any more islands

beyond those already in Petit Manan Refuge’s approved boundary. In

addition, this alternative would close all acquired islands to public use

year round. As such, public access would be negatively impacted and

many visitors would be upset by this change. We predict this action would

significantly reduce public support for the Refuge Complex and our

programs.

Impacts from Proposed Public Use Programs

Implementation of Alternative D would result in all Refuge Complex

islands being closed to public access year round. The only public access to

islands would be through staff-led programs or organized under special

use permits. This would severely limit the public’s access to the islands,

depriving at least 4,400 people annually of this experience. Many visitors

and local residents would be upset, as would local community officials.

This would adversely impact the relationship of the Service with the local

Alternative D
Chapter 4

4-42 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

community over the long term. Mainland based opportunities would

remain the same or decrease slightly as under Alternative A.

Under Alternative D, we would expect a 34% decline in total visitation

over the next 15 years due to the elimination of public access to islands, as

well as a 50% reduction in seabird viewing opportunities. This loss in

seabird viewing is attributed to the fact that the Petit Manan Island colony

would no longer be actively managed, it would be overtaken by gulls who

could adapt to the changes in vegetation, and it would likely be abandoned

by most other seabirds within the 15 year planning horizon and taken over

by gulls. Most of our commercial tour boat visitation occurs at this island,

so it would result in a total loss of viewing opportunities within 15 years.

Under Alternative D, the interpretive trails, overlooks, and other infrastructure described in Alternative B would not be built. The substantial

demand for environmental education and interpretation programs would

be even less satisfied than under Alternative A. We would disappoint

many visitors and local educators with our limited resources.

Alternative D would close all Refuge Complex lands to hunting, including

those proposed for acquisition which may currently allow hunting. This

would eliminate current Refuge Complex hunting opportunities on 22

refuge islands, and mainland parcels at Sawyers Marsh and Gouldsboro

Bay Divisions. Over 280 annual hunter visits would be eliminated. Local

hunters would be the most impacted, and we believe that most would

remove their support for the Refuge Complex. We cannot predict the

impact to hunting opportunities on those islands to be acquired under this

alternative since we do not know what current owners allow.

Camping would be eliminated on the two Refuge Complex islands included in the Maine Island Trail (Halifax and Bois Bubert). This action

would reduce the number of islands in the Downeast section of the Maine

Coast that are open to public camping, which is a very unique experience.

Further, a gap would be created in the trail which would affect trail users’

ability to island-hop. This would mostly affect members of MITA. In the

long-term, MITA may be able to get permission for camping from private

island owners, but this is not definite. MITA members would be very upset

with this proposal. We would jeopardize our working relationship with

them if this action were implemented.

Impacts from Proposed Vegetation and Habitat Management

Under Alternative D, vegetation would grow unimpeded. Over the longterm, wildlife viewing opportunities would decrease as vegetation would

screen wildlife from view. The habitat would no longer provide foraging

opportunities for white-tailed deer. Blueberry picking would also be

eliminated as blueberry fields require active management to stay productive and to eliminate encroachment by woody species.
Effects on Public Access, Educational and Recreational Opportunities

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-43

Impacts from Proposed Wildlife Populations Management

No impacts predicted.

Compared to Alternatives A and D, Alternatives B and C would appreciably expand Service ownership (87 islands and 151 islands, or portions

thereof, respectively) where priority public uses would be allowed outside

of seabird and bald eagle nesting seasons. Since virtually all of these

islands are privately-owned, this would represent a substantial increase in

public access to Maine coastal islands. Alternative A includes a 30 island

expansion and Alternative D would not allow any public access year

round.

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

B, and C commensurate with the proposed expansions and increased

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

Alternative D, we predict annual visitation would actually decline over

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

most popular viewing areas would no longer be actively managed and

their numbers would decline.

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

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

Petit Manan Point Division, and continue to

provide waterfowl hunting on the majority of

islands. Camping would continue to be allowed on two Refuge Complex islands, in

partnership with MITA. Alternative C is the

only alternative that would allow trapping in

certain areas, a new opportunity on the Refuge

Complex. Alternative A would continue current programs, where unmet requests for

programs is a common occurrence. Alternative

D would emphasize environmental education

on the mainland and with partners, but would

scale back on programs that draw more people

to the area.

Public Access,

Educational and

Recreational

Opportunities -

Summary

Many visitors use their own boats to access Refuge islands

outside the seabird nesting season

USFWS photo
Chapter 4

4-44 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

In protecting our cultural and historic resources, we are guided by specific

executive orders, policies, laws, regulations, standards, and guidelines. We

would comply with all appropriate legal mandates in our efforts to protect

and manage the cultural resources on the Refuge Complex. Our actions

likely to affect archaeological and historic sites are routinely reviewed and

assessed under provisions of Sec. 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. To date, projects requiring such review on the Refuge Complex

include the rehabilitation and stabilization of historical lighthouse structures.

It is probable that unrecorded coastal archaeological sites exist on current

Refuge Complex lands and on islands proposed for Service acquisition.

Many of these are likely to include seasonal shore fishing stations and

trading locations dating from approximately 2000 years ago up to the earliest

periods of European contact and settlement. Few of these locations have

been successfully located within New England, and even fewer studied

through archaeological excavation. Such sites could be among the most

significant of the nation’s historic archaeological sites, and the threat of loss

by erosion makes their discovery, study, and protection increasingly urgent.

Under Alternative A, the proposed Service acquisition of 467.1 acres

within the approved Petit Manan Refuge boundary and 30 additional

islands would have a direct, positive effect on cultural resource protection.

Service acquisition affords permanent protection from losses or disturbances due to development. While we are not aware of any recorded sites

on these lands, it is probable there are sites worthy of further study. Unfortunately, under this alternative, we would not be equipped for further

cultural resource inventories or studies, or able to reverse losses to sites

impacted by natural or human-induced erosion.

Lacking trained staff, a formal cultural resources survey, cultural resources

plan, and partnerships to cooperatively protect resources, we would not be

proactive in evaluating and protecting sites. Also, the limited law enforcement staff under this alternative would not allow us to adequately prevent

or address Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) violations.

With regards to our historic structures, we would continue to be unable to

adequately maintain them due to funding and staffing shortfalls; we would

simply not be able to address all of their existing and future maintenance

and stabilization requirements.

Under Alternative B, the proposed Service acquisition of 467.1 acres

within the approved Petit Manan Refuge boundary and 87 additional

islands would have a direct, positive effect on cultural resource protection,

almost tripling island protection compared to Alternative A.

This alternative would allow us to make an important, positive contribution to meeting our cultural resource public trust responsibilities. We

would have adequate resources to survey, map, catalog, monitor, and

protect archaeological and historic resources. Under Alternative B, we

Effects on Cultural

Resources

Alternative A (Current

Management)

Alternative B (Service’s

Preferred Alternative)
Effects on Cultural Resources

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-45

would increase staffing and training, conduct surveys and inventories,

develop formal agreements with the Coast Guard and respective lighthouse Friends Groups, and establish a partnership with the Passamaquoddy

Tribal Nation. Also, this alternative would result in the development and

dissemination of educational and outreach information emphasizing the

need to respect and protect cultural resources. We would be able to advance public awareness, understanding, and cooperation in protecting

these resource. This alternative would result in a significant increase in

our ability to meet and carry out national mandates to protect cultural

resources on Refuge Complex lands.

Under Alternative C, impacts would be similar in context to Alternative B,

except the increased Service land acquisition of 151 islands would make

an even greater contribution to the protection of cultural resources in

coastal Maine. Implementation of Alternative C would incorporate all the

cultural resource protection actions included in Alternative B, plus add

additional public use and law enforcement personnel. We would increase

by magnitudes our effectiveness in cultural and historic resource protection over the long-term.

Under Alternative D, we would also contribute positively to cultural

resource protection through Service acquisition of the 467.1 acres in the

approved Petit Manan Refuge boundary. However, the overall benefits are

much less than those proposed in Alternatives A, B, and C, since no new

islands are proposed for acquisition.

We would obtain more staff able identify and address ARPA violations

than we currently have. In addition, all islands would be closed to public

access under this alternative, thereby reducing the potential for direct

human-induced impacts on cultural resources. We would seek alternative

and supplemental funding sources to assist us in protecting the historic

lighthouse structures. Our goal would be to meet or exceed minimum

standards for their protection. This would positively impact historic

resource protection over the long term, more so than Alternative A.

No formal education or outreach program would be planned under this

alternative, thus reducing the effectiveness of our own protection efforts

and the ability to gain recognition and assistance from others.

All alternatives comply with legal mandates to protect and maintain

archeological and historic sites. All alternatives also propose to improve

relations with the Passamaquoddy and other Wabanaki Tribes through a

partnership agreement. Alternatives B and C would improve our baseline

information on existing and potential sites through surveys. Partnerships

would be developed to protect and restore historic sites. Under Alternatives A and D, very little change would occur; we would continue to meet

only the minimum standards for protection of historic sites.

Alternative C

Alternative D

Cultural Resources -

Summary
Chapter 4

4-46 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

The Refuge Complex includes an incredible diversity of habitats, some of

which are unique to the Refuge System. Our limited habitat management

on the Refuge Complex mainland is focused on maintaining grasslands,

open fields, and water impoundments for migrating birds. We very successfully manage six Refuge Complex islands to benefit nesting seabirds.

The effects of our management actions on Refuge Complex habitats,

including forested uplands, shrub and early successional habitat, saltmarsh

and freshwater wetlands are described below for each of the four alternatives. Effects to native, exotic, invasive plants, and rare plant communities

are also described.

Impacts from Proposed Land Acquisition and Protection

Our land acquisition proposal under Alternative A would protect 467.1

acres currently within Petit Manan Refuge’s approved boundary, and 30

additional nationally significant islands, from one of the principle threats

facing coastal habitats: habitat degradation resulting from development.

We do not anticipate the need for any active habitat management on the 30

coastal islands acquired under this alternative. Therefore, in the short

term, natural processes would dictate any changes to the existing vegetation communities. Vegetative succession is slow on these islands and we

do not anticipate any significant changes over the next 15 years. As a

result, the habitats found on these islands and coastal properties would

continue to support diverse vegetation communities, and provide valuable

nesting, foraging, and stopover habitat for a variety of species. On the

mainland, acquisition of the 95-acre Sawyers Marsh property would allow

us to initiate measures to protect important saltmarsh habitat, which is

currently being impacted by illegal off-road vehicle use.

Impacts from Proposed Public Use and Access Management

Under Alternative A, we would continue to provide public use opportunities on the two interpretive hiking trails, the Hollingsworth Memorial Trail

and the Birch Point Trail, both on the Petit Manan Point Division. Soil

compaction and vegetation trampling would likely continue to occur on

both trails, although under current public use levels, neither is considered

a major threat to Refuge Complex resources. Generally, the disturbance

would continue to be confined to the trail.

No public use facilities or parking areas have been developed on the

Gouldsboro Bay or Sawyer Marsh divisions, nor would any be developed

under Alternative A. Visitors would continue to utilize existing unauthorized “trails”created during past forestry harvesting operations. Hunters

and shellfish harvesters would also continue to violate Refuge Complex

and State regulations on the Gouldsboro Bay Division by driving off-road

vehicles into the saltmarsh, thus trampling vegetation. Similarly, illegal

off-road vehicle use would continue at the Sawyers Marsh Division where

Effects on Vegetation

and Habitats

Alternative A (Current

Management)
Effects on Vegetation and Habitats

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-47

no infrastructure is in place. This practice would continue to result in soil

compaction, erosion, and destruction of vegetation. Without law enforcement staff to enforce regulations, both upland and saltmarsh vegetation on

Sawyers Marsh and Gouldsboro Bay Divisions would continue to be

adversely affected, resulting in long-term habitat degradation.

All seabird nesting islands would remain closed to public visitation from

April 1 - August 31, to protect nesting seabirds from human disturbance.

The seasonal closures on the 30 proposed new islands would limit traditional uses, such as camping, which has a high probability of impacting

vegetation through trampling if not managed properly. The seasonal

restrictions would also serve to limit potential damage during the peak

growing season of most fragile botanical communities located on coastal

islands.

Camping would continue to be allowed in designated sites on Bois Bubert

and Halifax islands. While some soil compaction has occurred, we do not

believe that continued camping would cause irreversible degradation in

the short term. We would continue to work with MITA to monitor sites to

detect and reverse the potential for long-term negative impacts

A significant portion of Halifax Island would remain closed to public

access year round to protect rare plant communities. We anticipate that

some of the 30 proposed new islands would also host rare plant communities. Acquisition by the Service would protect these sites from the threats

associated with development (vegetation clearing, construction, and offroad vehicle use) and uncontrolled public access during the peak growing

season.

Impacts from Proposed Vegetation and Habitat Management

Under Alternative A, once land is acquired by the Service, natural disturbances would be the dominant force altering the forest composition of

these lands over the long-term. As a result, the combined effects of wind,

fire, ice, insects, and pathogens would create a variety of landscape patterns that vary in stand sizes, shapes, ages, and structural diversity (Elliot

1999). Small natural disturbances can create gaps in the forest canopy that

promote the growth of younger trees and increase the overall diversity of

the stand (Elliot 1999). We do not anticipate any significant short-term

effects to the composition of Refuge Complex forests through our acquisition process or management actions. However, over the long-term, these

forests would be sustained as mature and old growth conifer dominated

stands subjected to natural processes. The resulting stands would be more

diverse in structure and composition than they appear today.

We recently completed cover-type maps for the mainland divisions using

the National Vegetation Classification System. Accurate cover-type maps

allow us, with input from a variety of conservation agencies, to evaluate

the current cover type patterns as well as the best cover type distribution
Chapter 4

4-48 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

to meet our goals and objectives on Refuge Complex lands. Under Alternative A we would continue this evaluation in support of our goals and

objectives.

We would continue to operate without a detailed Habitat Management

Plan for the Refuge Complex. Instead, we would continue to manage a

few project areas without long-term goals, objectives, and evaluation

strategies. We would continue to utilize a variety of vegetation management techniques to maintain or enhance open field habitat for species of

conservation concern. These include use of prescribed burning, herbicides,

fencing, mowing, rototilling, and sheep grazing. We would continue to

monitor vegetation treatment areas pre- and post-treatment to evaluate the

effectiveness of manipulating vegetation and determining wildlife response. Overall, the effects of our habitat manipulation efforts would

rarely last beyond one to two growing seasons, and there are no significant

changes to species composition. Plants would continue to primarily

regenerate from seeds within the soil or roots left unharmed by the treatment method. A more detailed description of our treatment methods is

presented below.

Prescribed Burning: We would continue to use prescribed fire to facilitate grassland management and restoration on approximately 70 acres, to

manage threatened and endangered species habitats, to reduce hazardous

fuels and debris, or to control invasive or exotic species. The following

figures would be our annual maximums for prescribed burning under

Alternative A:

■ 30 acres/year for enhancing or maintaining wildlife or botanical

populations;

■ 15 acres/year to preserve threatened or endangered species and promote

biological diversity;

■ 7 acres/year to control exotic or invasive species and reduce hazardous

fuels, and;

■ 3 acres/year for boundary maintenance or debris removal around

structures.

We have utilized prescribed burning and mowing to maintain grassland

habitat on Petit Manan Island and we would continue its use there and

potentially on other islands. Our efforts have focused on reducing the

abundance and density of blue joint (Calamagrostis canadensis) and

raspberry (Rubus sp.). Both species grow to densities and heights which

exclude nesting by terns and may promote nesting competition by laughing gulls. In recent years, we have conducted these prescribed burns on

portions of Petit Manan Island during the month of April. This practice

results in an oxidation of standing dead biomass and surface litter, with

little damage to regenerating herbaceous perennials (N. Richards pers.

comm.). Although spring burns reduce small woody and semi-woody
Effects on Vegetation and Habitats

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-49

stems down to near ground level, the plants

retain their ability to re-sprout below the

burned stems. With the exception of species

that re-sprout readily after a burn and benefit

from the temporary reduction in dead plant

cover, spring burning would not likely have a

significant effect on the existing community

composition.

Unfortunately, raspberry may actually benefit

from the release of nitrogen, the warming of

blackened soil, and the liming and fertilizer

effect resulting from the burned vegetation (N.

Richards pers. comm.). Although the long-term

effects of repeated burning of blue joint and

raspberry on Petit Manan Island are not currently known, fire does remove standing

raspberry canes. At a minimum, this sets back plant height for the following growing season. For dense thatch forming species such as blue joint,

burning reduces the thatch component and exposes more bare ground.

Based on our experiences, the prescribed fire activities conducted on Petit

Manan Island would rarely affect habitat conditions beyond the next

growing season.

On the Petit Manan Point Division, we would continue to use prescribed

fire to enhance blueberry production and control encroachment of invasive

woody species such as sweet fern in the 70 acres of open field. Commercial blueberry growers have determined that crop yield can be improved

with periodic pruning, including pruning by fire or mowing. In addition to

removing the stems, fire offers several other benefits to the crop, including

a reduction in insects, disease, and weeds (University of Maine, Coop.

Ext. fact sheet #229). This practice maintains nesting habitat for a variety

of grassland breeding birds, and also produces significant berry crops

utilized by a variety of bird and mammal species, including migratory

whimbrels. In addition to reducing plant height and density, burning

removes accumulated layers of organic material from the surface of the

ground. During the past five years, we have burned up to 33 acres per year

on Petit Manan Point. We would continue to adhere to the Fire Plan to

ensure burning effects are short-lived and do not degrade or cause longterm damage to soils or vegetation. We would typically burn these acres

on 3 to 5 year intervals.

Sheep Grazing: We would continue to use sheep grazing to manage

vegetation for common and Arctic terns nesting on Metinic Island. The

flock of 120 sheep belongs to the family who owns the southern 150 acres

of the island. With the exception of a few small vegetation study plots that

we have fenced, the sheep are generally allowed to graze the entire island.

In an effort to monitor the vegetation’s response to grazing, we would

Prescribed burning efforts on Petit Manan Point Division

USFWS photo
Chapter 4

4-50 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

continue to maintain two permanently fenced plots and two reference

“unfenced”plots. Several times each season, we would continue to record

the species composition and plant height in these four plots. Prior to the

tern nesting season, we would also encircle the 3-acre tern restoration area

with electric fencing. Protection from grazing allows the vegetation to

increase in height, and provide nesting cover for the terns. Although terns

will nest within a variety of habitat conditions, they generally prefer some

overhead cover and a mix of vegetation and open space (Cramp 1985,

USFWS 2000). The density and height of the plants seem to be more

significant in determining use by nesting terns rather than specific plant

species composition. (NAS 1994, NAS 1995). Information we have

gathered to date on Metinic Island indicates that sheep are altering the

species composition, density, and height of the vegetation. However, it

appears that the seasonal fencing of the restoration area is providing terns

with appropriate nesting cover. At the end of the nesting season, the fence

is removed and the sheep may graze the entire island. Seasonal grazing of

the restoration area controls the growth of rank vegetation, which, in the

absence of vegetation management, would eventually exclude nesting terns.

We would continue seasonal grazing of the restoration area as it appears to

be providing terns with suitable nesting habitat and is the most viable

vegetation management tool we have available on this remote island.

On Little Nash Island, approximately 30 sheep graze the adjacent privately owned Big Nash Island and cross at low tide to access Serviceowned Little Nash Island. The effects of sheep grazing on the vegetation

and seabirds of Little Nash Island have not been studied. Our observations

indicate that grazing pressure and vegetation conditions are similar to that

observed on Metinic Island. We would continue to allow grazing on these

two islands since it would remain the most viable means of vegetation

management for nesting terns on a remote island. As with many coastal

islands, sheep have grazed here for generations, so it is difficult to determine with certainty what the natural vegetation community would look

like in the absence of grazing.

Mowing: On the Petit Manan Point Division, we would continue to mow

to control the encroachment of invasive woody species such as sweet fern.

Our primary objective would continue to be enhancement of habitat for

migratory birds and grassland breeding birds. During the past five years

we have mowed up to 18 acres per year. Typically, mowing has been

utilized when weather or logistical constraints prohibit burning of targeted

fields. Mowing reduces plant height without altering species composition

or reducing accumulated thatch. Fields would require repeated mowing or

burning within 3-5 years to maintain desired habitat conditions.

On several occasions, we have utilized mowing in an effort to enhance

nesting habitat for terns on Petit Manan and Ship islands. We would

continue this practice under Alternative A, mowing in the fall. Limited

spring mowing efforts have proven unsuccessful, and the vegetation
Effects on Vegetation and Habitats

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-51

generally has recovered to full height within a matter of weeks. In 2002,

we initiated a fall mowing schedule on Petit Manan Island. If favorable

moisture conditions exist, mowing in August and September will set back

plants that are actively growing at that time, and foster cool-season grasses

and other species that have a second vegetative growth period in the fall

(N. Richards pers. com). We anticipate that repeated fall mowing efforts

would reduce areas of raspberry, while promoting the growth of various

grass species which would provide better nesting habitat for terns. This

practice may also reduce the vigorous spread of the invasive species

dodder (Cuscuta gronovii) on Petit Manan Island. We do not anticipate

mowing on any other seabird islands due to the logistical difficulties of

getting the equipment onto the islands.

Herbicides: We would continue very limited use of the herbicide Roundup

on Petit Manan Island in an effort to control raspberry. The primary active

ingredient of Roundup is glyphosate, which has undergone extensive

environmental review and has not been found to be toxic to wildlife, or

bioaccumulate in the foodchain (Monsanto 1993). Roundup is a broadspectrum herbicide with no soil residual activity. The compound is degraded by microbes within the soil and the average half life of glyphosate

is less than 45 days (Monsanto 1993).

On Petit Manan Island, we applied the compound directly to the raspberry

plants using a hand sprayer. The single application of Roundup was

applied in August 1999 and resulted in the elimination of raspberry from

the treated areas during the 2000 seabird season. In some treated areas, the

raspberry started to recover in 2001, and now once again represents a

significant component of the vegetative cover. It is possible that removal

of the vegetative cover may have resulted in increased nutrient release

from the soil resulting in increased seed germination (N. Richards pers.

comm.). This could result in aggressive invasive species gaining a foothold in the treated area. We minimized effects to non-target species by

hand spraying and applying the compound while non-target species were

dormant. We do not anticipate significant future use of herbicides on

Refuge Complex property. Roundup application would continue to be

appropriate for the control of exotic or invasive species, or to treat areas

that are unsuitable for other methods of vegetation management (i.e.

adjacent to structures, rocky terrain). Due to the availability of plant seeds

within the soil, herbicide application would not have the ability to alter

species composition on Petit Manan Island, nor would it be expected to

have any effect beyond 1-3 years.

Rare plants: We would continue to conduct botanical evaluations on at

least two Refuge Complex islands per year to identify plant communities

of concern and to serve as a baseline for future habitat management

1

 The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information

and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement of

any product or service by the U.S. Department of Interior.
Chapter 4

4-52 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

decisions. With island specific information, we would be better able to

determine potential threats and the conservation measures necessary to

ensure continued viability of rare plants. Unfortunately, our current staffing levels do not allow us to aggressively eradicate exotic and invasive

species which have been documented as threats to rare plants on coastal

islands.

Impacts from Proposed Wildlife Populations Management

No impacts are predicted.

Impacts from Proposed Land Acquisition and Protection

In addition to the 467.1 acres currently within the approved Petit Manan

Refuge boundary, the Service would acquire 87 nationally significant

seabird, wading bird, bald eagle, and waterfowl nesting islands and 153.3

acres of important wetlands and migratory bird habitat. This effort would

protect these parcels from one of the principle threats facing coastal

habitats: habitat loss and degradation resulting from development. The

islands span the entire Maine coast and represent the full diversity of

island habitats. Service acquisition would result in permanent protection

of representative coastal habitats, providing valuable nesting, foraging,

and stopover areas for a wide variety of species.

On all but 12 of the islands, only natural processes would dictate changes

to the vegetation communities, as we would not be actively managing the

habitat. On the 12 islands selected for seabird restoration efforts, intensive

habitat management would occur as described below.

Impacts from Proposed Public Use and Access Management

In addition to actions proposed in Alternative A, under Alternative B we

would build a new trails and parking areas on the Gouldsboro Bay, Sawyers Marsh, and Corea Heath divisions. These would each require clearing

approximately 106,000 square feet (2.5 miles long by eight feet wide) of

vegetation for the trail and 800 square feet (room for 10 cars) for the

parking area. We would utilize as much of old dirt logging roadbeds as

possible. Up to two trail-side interpretive overlooks would also be added

to each trail. The trail and parking area would increase access to the

Refuge Complex’s mainland divisions for hikers, bird watchers, and

hunters. Development of the trail would permanently remove vegetation

within the footprint of the trail; however, it would minimize continued

vegetation destruction resulting from creation and use of “unauthorized”

trails. All visitors would be required to stay on designated trails. Boardwalks would be constructed over saturated areas to protect sensitive

vegetation from adverse impacts.

Alternative B (Service’s

Preferred Alternative)
Effects on Vegetation and Habitats

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-53

Under Alternative B, on Petit Manan Point we would build a designated

access trail to at least one overlook on the Birch Point Trail at Carrying

Place Cove. Currently, visitors routinely venture off the present trail to

view this cove. While development of the overlook and designated spur

trail would result in a permanent loss of vegetation within the footprint of

the trail, we would utilize existing “unauthorized” trails to the extent

possible to minimize additional disturbance to vegetation. Establishment

of a viewing platform and access trail should limit human activity to one

defined area and minimize adverse effects to vegetation along the various

trails currently used by the public. Areas not part of the designated trail

would revegetate naturally from adjacent seed and root sources.

The seasonal seabird and bald eagle nesting island closures would potentially limit traditional uses, such as camping, on some islands, but would

also reduce vegetation damage associated with human visitation. These

closures afford protection to the fragile botanical communities located on

many of the islands during their peak growing season.

Gates would be erected at several vehicle access points on the Sawyers

Marsh Division. This would eliminate or significantly reduce visitors’

ability to drive onto refuge lands and adjacent saltmarsh for hunting or

other purposes. While some visitors may be inconvenienced, this access

by highway and off-road vehicles has never been authorized, and we have

been concerned about resource damage. Soil compaction, erosion, and

destruction of vegetation would all be reduced by this management action.

Law enforcement staff hired under this alternative would allow us to

enforce against these unauthorized activities.

Impacts from Habitat and Vegetation Management

Under Alternative B, we would complete a Habitat Management Plan

(HMP) for the Refuge Complex within one year, providing more detailed

and site specific objectives and strategies for each cover type. We would

work closely with our conservation partners during the development of

this plan to ensure that we continue to contribute to the ecological diversity of the Maine coast. We would use vegetative treatments, similar to

Alternative A, such as mechanical, biological, chemical, grazing, and

prescribed fire, where appropriate, to manage for desirable vegetation and

to control invasive and exotic plants. Our management activities would be

designed to enhance habitat conditions for certain species of management

concern, which may include negative trade-offs with other native species.

Our HMP would further refine the direction for managing cover types

provided below for Alternative B.

Mature Conifer: We would maintain mature conifer forest habitat where

it exists on the Refuge Complex; including, 905 acres on Petit Manan

Point, 734 acres on Bois Bubert Island and 1,248 acres on Cross Island.

Although conifers dominate a large percentage of Maine’s forests, the
Chapter 4

4-54 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

forest industry has favored shorter harvest rotations which has created

younger, even-aged forested stands that provide less structural and ageclass diversity than older stands. These younger, even-aged forests typically have a lower supply of downed and standing dead wood, more

uniform vertical structure and canopy gaps, and a highly altered plant and

animal composition (Elliott 1999). Under Service ownership, natural

disturbances would be the dominate force altering forest composition, and

the trees would grow and age as nature dictates. We would not anticipate

any short-term changes to these forests resulting from our management.

However, over the long-term, we anticipate that these forests would

acquire more old-growth conditions, resulting in greater standing and

down, live and dead biomass, more structural diversity and an increased

variety of age classes.

Northern Hardwood-mixed Forest: We would maintain at least 1,250

acres of northern hardwood-mixed forest habitat where it exists on the

Refuge Complex. Although small amounts of this habitat type can be

found on many of the islands, the largest

parcels would remain on three mainland

divisions (453 acres on Petit Manan Point Division, 123 acres on Gouldsboro Bay Division,

and 455 acres on Sawyers Marsh Division).

Our management actions would focus on

maintaining a range of forest age structures.

The majority of acres would be mid-successional and late-successional forest, providing

structural diversity (shrubs and treefall) within

the forest. We would not anticipate any shortterm changes to the forest through our management. However, over the long-term we would

predict that more shade tolerant species would

dominate the stand, resulting in a gradual

conversion to conifer forest. After 50 years,

hardwood species would remain a viable

component of the forest, but would likely develop a more patchy distribution as they would only germinate in canopy gaps created through natural

disturbances.

Early Successional Forest/Scrub-Shrub Community: We would manage approximately 226 acres in early successional forest/scrub-shrub

community, primarily on the Petit Manan Point Division, which is dominated by speckled alder, mountain ash, and sweet gale. In the northeast,

this habitat is typically created from natural disturbances such as fire,

flooding, beaver activity, or severe storms or occurs as a relatively shortlived vegetation stage after agricultural abandonment or logging (Rosenberg

and Hodgman 2000). Throughout coastal Maine, current land management

practices strive to avoid these disturbances and, as a result, this habitat

Timber cove, Gouldsboro Bay Division

USFWS photo
Effects on Vegetation and Habitats

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-55

type and many landbirds associated with it are in decline. We would

utilize some of the habitat management techniques described in Alternative A to maintain these serial stages of vegetation. Without active

management, or natural disturbances, this habitat would eventually be

replaced by northern hardwood, then conifer forest.

Open Field/Grasslands: We would manage up to 100 acres of earlysuccessional open field and grassland habitat (i.e., blueberry barrens and

native, cool season grasses) on the Refuge Complex mainland, mainly on

Petit Manan Point Division. Without some level of intervention, it is likely

that these fields would eventually evolve into shrubs and young forest. We

would continue to use prescribed fire and mowing to facilitate open field

and grassland management and restoration across the Refuge Complex, to

manage threatened and endangered species, to reduce hazardous fuels and

debris, or to control invasive or exotic species. The following figures

should be considered annual maximums for prescribed burning:

■ 70 acres / year for enhancing or maintaining wildlife or botanical

populations;

■ 25 acres / year to preserve threatened or endangered species and

promote biological diversity;

■ 10 acres / year to control exotic or invasive species and reduce

hazardous fuels, and;

■ 5 acres / year for boundary maintenance or debris removal around

structures. The impact from prescribed fire and herbicides has already

been described.

On the coastal islands there are extensive areas of mixed grasses and

various herbaceous species, which provide high quality nesting and

migration habitat for many bird species of conservation concern. Our

management of these island cover types would continue to be at seabird

restoration sites. Under Alternative B, we would establish six new seabird

restoration projects on islands in addition to the six we currently manage.

Several of these projects could require intensive habitat management in

order to create suitable nesting habitat for the terns. We have not identified

which islands would support these projects, therefore, we cannot evaluate

the site specific consequences of our management actions at this time.

However, we would utilize the vegetation management techniques outlined in Alternative A. Grazing would be permitted on some of the seabird

islands, however, we would require special use permits be issued to the

operators to better manage grazing intensity, distribution, and duration on

Refuge Complex lands.

Maritime Saltmarsh and Estuary: We would maintain the existing 69

acres of maritime saltmarsh and estuary located on Cross Island, Sawyers

Marsh, Gouldsboro Bay and Petit Manan Point Divisions, to ensure the

quality and natural function of the marshes are sustained. Service
Chapter 4

4-56 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

acquisition of the marshes and the adjacent upland habitat would protect

these sites from the adverse effects (i.e. non-point source pollution, erosion, invasive species) associated with development of surrounding uplands. We would manage to minimize the human-induced adverse impacts

on this habitat type. We do not anticipate that the vegetation communities

found in these marshes would be modified as the result of this management action. Over the long-term, greater protection would be afforded

these areas.

Jack Pine: We would maintain the existing 40 acres of jack pine woodlands (28 acres on Bois Bubert Island and 11 acres on the Petit Manan

Point Division) to ensure this community continues to provide a unique

and important contribution to the biological diversity of the Refuge Complex. Jack pine is a “pioneer”species which establishes in areas that have

been disturbed by fire or other disturbance processes that set back vegetation. The seeds do not usually survive in areas with a thick organic layer

and studies indicate that seeds experience a higher germination rate when

a fire consumes the organic material and exposes a more suitable seed bed

of mineral soil (Maine NAP 1983). Exposure to periodic fires increases

the ability of jack pine to maintain its dominance over potentially invasive

or fire-sensitive tree species. Without further disturbances, these jack pine

woodlands would be replaced by spruce-fir forests over time (Maine NAP

1983). The two jack pine stands found on the Refuge Complex represent

two of only eight known stands in Maine. Loss of these areas would

represent a significant reduction in the biodiversity of this region. We

would coordinate with our Regional Fire Management Officer to determine appropriate site-specific prescriptions for burning.

Rare Plants and Invasive Plants: We would manage rare plant communities on the Refuge Complex to maintain or enhance their populations,

ensuring that they remain viable and contribute to the natural botanical

diversity of the area. We would conduct six botanical inventories per year

on Refuge Complex islands in an effort to document rare plant occurrences and to develop management actions. This information would serve

as a baseline for future management decisions and allow us to address

threats from exotic and invasive species. Similar to Alternative A, we may

restrict public access in order to protect rare or fragile plant communities.

Minimizing human disturbance would help to protect these plant communities from trampling, soil compaction, and illegal collection.

We would actively treat exotic and invasive plant species. Treatment

methods used would include herbicides, prescribed fire, mowing, and

biological control measures. We would work with our conservation partners to determine the most appropriate and effective means of control.

With information available to us, we do not think we have a significant

invasive plant problem at this time. However, as additional islands are

added to the Refuge Complex and botanical inventories are conducted, we

anticipate that more active control measures would be needed. Invasive
Effects on Vegetation and Habitats

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-57

species control measures would protect the long-term native biodiversity

of these coastal islands. Over the long-term, acquisition of islands supporting rare plants or communities would continue to be the best initial

step to protect them from human induced habitat alteration. Over the longterm, our goal would be to ensure that rare plant communities are sustained and contributing to the rich ecological diversity of the Maine coast.

Freshwater Wetlands: We would manage the existing 467 acres of

freshwater wetlands on the four mainland divisions. The wetlands represent a diversity of habitats ranging from forested wetland to coastal raised

bogs. On Petit Manan Point, three large wetland complexes (Meadow

Brook, Mague Flowage, and Cranberry impoundment) comprising 112

acres, provide areas of open and shallow water marshes, ericaceous

shrubs, and wild rice. Although all three impoundments have water control

structures, we do not actively manage the water levels. Annual precipitation levels and beaver dams would continue to dictate water levels. When

conditions allow, we would introduce wild rice into Mague flowage in an

effort to enhance foraging habitat for migratory waterfowl. We would not

anticipate any significant long-term changes to the wetland vegetation as a

result of our management actions. Also on the mainland divisions, we

would continue surveys to locate vernal pools and document use by

amphibians and reptiles. This baseline information would allow us to

make more informed decisions on managing these habitats to benefit

wetlands-dependent species over the long-term.

Impacts from Wildlife Populations Management

No impacts predicted.

Impacts from Proposed Land Acquisition and Protection

In addition to the 467.1 acres currently within the approved Petit Manan

Refuge boundary, the Service would acquire all, or portions of the larger

(>200 acres), 151 nationally significant seabird, wading bird, bald eagle,

and waterfowl nesting islands. These islands would be permanently

protected from one of the principle threats facing coastal habitats: habitat

degradation resulting from development. These 151 islands represent all

of the seabird, wading bird, bald eagle, and waterfowl nesting islands not

currently protected in conservation ownership. Similar to Alternative B,

these islands include the full diversity of island habitats along the Maine

coast. Their protection would ensure that valuable nesting, foraging, and

stopover habitat would be available long-term to Federal trust species.

Similar to Alternative B, on most of the islands, natural processes would

dictate any changes to the vegetation communities because they would

not be actively managed. The only exception would be the proposed

seabird restoration islands, which will increase from 6 to 12 new islands.

Alternative B described these impacts in more detail.

Alternative C
Chapter 4

4-58 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Impacts from Proposed Public Use and Access Management

We would construct the same public use infrastructure as identified in

Alternative B and the impacts would be similar. We predict that establishing the trails would minimize continued vegetation destruction resulting

from creation and use of “unauthorized” trails. Boardwalks would be

constructed over saturated areas to protect sensitive vegetation. All visitors would be required to stay on designated trails.

We would also construct two photo blinds on the mainland divisions to

enhance opportunities for wildlife photography. At this point in time,

locations for the blinds have not been determined but we anticipate impacts on vegetation would limited to the footprint of the structures and

short access trails. Approximately 1 acre would be disturbed for each

project.

With concurrence of the Town of Gouldsboro, we would erect gates on

either end of the Old County Road. This would eliminate illegal off-road

vehicle use of the Gouldsboro Bay Division. This action would minimize

continued vegetation destruction, soil compaction, and erosion, all of

which we have observed resulting from unauthorized ATV use. Law

enforcement staff hired under this alternative would also provide us with

the resources to enforce against unauthorized access and continued resource degradation.

Impacts from Proposed Vegetation and Habitat Management

In addition to the HMP outlined under Alternative B, we would develop

“island-specific” plans for each of the islands within the Refuge Complex.

This action would require extensive financial and staff support to document botanical communities and exotic and invasive species concerns on

all current and proposed Refuge Complex islands.

Under Alternative C, we would manage the uplands and wetlands cover

types, and rare plant communities on the mainland the same as Alternative

B. We predict impacts would be similar to those described for Alternative

B. On islands, the management strategies and impacts would also be the

same, except they would be increased in scope over Alternative B by

virtue of the proposed increased island acquisition.

We would continue to use prescribed fire and mowing to facilitate grassland management and restoration, to manage threatened and endangered

species, to reduce hazardous fuels and debris, or to control invasive or

exotic species. The following figures should be considered annual maximums:

■ 140 acres / year for enhancing or maintaining wildlife or botanical

populations;

■ 50 acres / year to preserve threatened or endangered species and

promote biological diversity;
Effects on Vegetation and Habitats

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-59

■ 50 acres / year to control exotic or invasive species and reduce

hazardous fuels, and;

■ 10 acres / year for boundary maintenance or debris removal around

structures.

Under Alternative C, we would establish 12 new seabird restoration

projects, in addition to the 6 we currently manage (e.g. 18 sites total). This

represents a significant expansion of our restoration activities, and would

require dramatic increases in funding and staffing support. We have not

selected the new restoration islands, so it is not possible to thoroughly

evaluate the consequences to vegetation. However, we would likely

reduce the abundance of rank species such as raspberry, in an effort to

promote vegetation favored by nesting terns (i.e. mixed grasses). We

would utilize the variety of techniques outlined in Alternative A to maintain habitat on the restoration islands.

Impacts from Proposed Wildlife Populations Management

No impacts predicted.

Impacts from Proposed Land Acquisition and Protection

Under Alternative D, the Service would acquire the 467.1 acres currently

within the approved Petit Manan Refuge acquisition boundary. No additional protection would be afforded to the 151 nationally significant

seabird, wading bird, bald eagle, and waterfowl nesting islands currently

lacking conservation ownership. Instead, this alternative assumes the

islands are best served through ownership by our conservation partners.

However, we cannot commit our partners to acquiring these specific

islands. Each conservation organization would evaluate its interest based

on available resources, its mission, and commitment by constituents. We

would expect that islands requiring active management, monitoring, or

law enforcement would receive less protection under this alternative.

Impacts from Proposed Public Use and Access Management

Under Alternative D, all Refuge Complex islands would be closed to

public access year round. The islands would be managed as ecological

reserves, where human intervention and presence are minimized. A few

staff- or partner-led tours would be provided or permitted only under

special use permits. As a result, soil compaction and vegetation trampling

resulting from day visits and camping on the islands would be eliminated

or significantly reduced over the long-term, and areas already impacted

would be able to recover.

No additional public use facilities would be developed on the mainland, so no

losses in vegetation would occur due to new construction. Soil compaction,

vegetation trampling, and intrusions in to the saltmarshes would likely

Alternative D
Chapter 4

4-60 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

continue and ultimately worsen as public use continues to increase. In

particular, failure to designate a trail at Gouldsboro Bay Division would

result in continued loss of vegetation and degradation of conditions along

the “unauthorized” trails currently utilized by visitors.

Under Alternative D, we would close the Refuge Complex to hunting. It is

unlikely this would result in significant vegetation change within the next

15 years; however, should deer population levels increase significantly,

the inability to conduct a hunt may result in over browsing, damage to rare

plant communities, and conflicts with adjacent landowners.

Impacts from Proposed Habitat and Vegetation Management

Under Alternative D, we would allow natural succession to occur in all

habitat types. The mature conifer and northern hardwood-mixed forest

would continue to mature as proposed in Alternative B. In addition, we

would no longer manage for early successional forest/edge habitat dominated by species such as alder (Alnus spp) and cherry (Prunus spp) approximately 2-10' tall. We anticipate that

without management a significant percentage of

this habitat would mature into conifer or coniferhardwood mixed forest over the long-term. We

would also not actively manage the saltmarsh

and wetlands on the Refuge Complex; however, we do not expect any appreciable impacts

or changes to vegetation. Other impacts to

cover types resulting from Alternative D are

presented below.

Open Field/Grasslands: We would eliminate

sheep grazing, herbicides, mowing, and burning as habitat management tools. This change

in management practices would significantly

reduce our ability to maintain or enhance open

field/grassland habitats. Within the next 15

years, the grass and blueberry fields on Petit

Manan Point would likely be replaced by shrub

communities, with conversion to forested

habitat over the long-term. On the coastal

islands, we would not actively manage vegetation, even on the six seabird restoration sites.

This would result in a loss of nesting habitat

for terns which generally require lower vegetation than would be expected under “nonmanaged” conditions. On several of the seabird islands, we have documented the

Northern blue flag

USFWS photo
Effects on Vegetation and Habitats

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-61

expansion of rank vegetation and the subsequent loss of breeding opportunities for terns. Combined with a reduction in predator control efforts, this

alternative would significantly limit our ability to contribute to restoration

efforts for the endangered roseate tern and several other state-listed species. In contrast, species such as common eider and laughing gull would

benefit in the short-term from the growth of rank vegetation (blue joint

and raspberry), and their nesting population would be expected to expand

on these 6 islands. This benefit would not last over the long-term; however, as they would eventually succumb to the increase in predators.

Rare Plants: Service acquisition of the 467.1 acres in the approved Petit

Manan Refuge boundary would permanently protect rare plants. However,

botanical resources would be at risk on the remaining 151 nationally

significant nesting islands unless protected by others, which we cannot

guarantee. We would not actively manage the vegetation or permit grazing

on Refuge Complex islands which could have both positive and negative

consequences on rare plants. Currently, we only manage the vegetation on

three of the six seabird restoration islands and we avoid any rare plant

communities during these management actions. However, it is possible

that our management is suppressing a rare species or plant community that

we have not detected to date. This type of species could benefit from a “no

vegetation management/no-grazing” approach. Species which require

periodic disturbance or removal of more aggressive vegetation growth in

order to survive would be adversely affected by the “hands-off” approach

proposed under Alternative D.

Under Alternative D, staff and financial resources would not allow us to

adequately inventory and evaluate threats to rare plant communities. It is

probable that rare species and botanical communities would be lost due to

habitat change from succession, invasive or exotic species, or habitat

alteration without our knowledge. Alternative D would limit our ability to

detect plant population declines, and irreversible changes could occur.

Jack Pine: Due to the “hands-off” approach to management in this alternative, we would not initiate any actions, including prescribed burning, to

benefit the maintaining the two jack pine woodlands found on the Refuge

Complex. The significance of these communities and their specific habitat

requirements are outlined in Alternative B. Without future management

actions or natural fire events, it is likely these jack pine woodlands would

be replaced by spruce-fir forests (Maine NAP 1983). Although no significant change would be expected within the next 15 years, the long-term

consequences of this alternative would be conversion to spruce-fir forest,

and the biological diversity of the Refuge Complex and coastal Maine

would be negatively affected.

Impacts from Proposed Wildlife Populations Management

No impacts predicted.
Chapter 4

4-62 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Under Alternatives A, B, and C, few changes in vegetation management

would occur on existing Refuge Complex lands. The few changes would

occur under Alternatives B and C and include up to 100 acres of northern

hardwood-mixed forest and scrub shrub managed to diverse age classes,

and active management of rare plant sites and Jack pine stands. Under

Alternative D, no vegetation management would occur so any changes

would be the result of natural processes. On the islands, the primary difference in active vegetation management would be associated with the number

of proposed seabird restoration sites. Under Alternative A, it would remain

at 6 sites; under Alternative B it would be 12 sites; under Alternative C it

would be 18 sites, and under Alternative D it would be minimum maintenance of 6 sites.

The two Federal-listed species most likely to be impacted from our management actions are the endangered roseate tern and threatened bald eagle.

We also discuss implications to the threatened piping plover.

Impacts from Proposed Land Acquisition and Protection

Under Alternative A, Service acquisition of the 467.1 acres currently

within the approved Petit Manan Refuge boundary and 30 additional

nationally significant nesting islands would permanently protect these

important nesting areas. One proposed new island currently supports

nesting bald eagles, but several others provide suitable habitat for eagles

to nest in the future. Permanent protection of nesting areas and protection

from human disturbance are the two most significant factors necessary to

insure the continued expansion of the Maine bald eagle population.

Two historic roseate tern nesting islands, currently not under conservation

ownership, would also be permanently protected under Alternative A.

Land protection remains a critical component in the recovery of roseate

tern and other nesting seabirds because sufficient habitat must be available

to accommodate expanding populations. Active predator control and/or

habitat management may also be necessary if the roseate tern is to sustain

nesting on any of these islands.

Protection of additional Refuge Complex islands would also provide

migratory stopover and foraging areas for the Federal-listed piping plover.

The islands are generally free from mainland mammalian predators, and

human disturbance is much reduced during the migration seasons. By

protecting critical feeding and resting areas we would be contributing to

improved physical conditions of piping plover during their migration, and

ultimately contributing to the recovery of the species.

Vegetation and Habitats -

Summary

Effects on

Threatened and

Endangered Species

Alternative A (Current

Management)
Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-63

Impacts from Proposed Public Use and Access Management

We would continue to manage public use and access on Refuge Complex

lands to minimize any disturbance or adverse impact to threatened and

endangered species. Our seasonal public access restrictions on nesting

islands would support this goal.

In addition to our current nesting islands, we would implement the seasonal restrictions outlined below on all 30 islands proposed for acquisition.

Bald Eagles: We would maintain seasonal closures on bald eagle nesting

islands during the breeding season. Currently we have six active and four

historic bald eagle nesting sites on the Refuge Complex. Islands (or

portions thereof) which support nesting bald eagles would remain closed

to public access from February 15 to August 31. Historical eagle nesting

islands would remain closed from February 15 to May 1. By May 1, we

would determine whether to keep the islands closed to public visitation

until August 31 due to the presence of eagles, or open them for day use.

Several of the islands proposed for acquisition under this alternative

could, in the future, provide nesting habitat for eagles. We would continue

to use public education efforts to inform the public about the adverse

effects of disturbing eagles during the nesting season.

Roseate Terns: We would continue to close all seabird nesting islands to

public visitation from April 1 to August 31. When a human or other

perceived predator enters a tern colony the majority of the colony will rise

up from their nests to mob the “predator”. Group defense of the nesting

area is one of the primary benefits of nesting colonially. Frequently, gulls

will take advantage of this disturbance and enter the seabird colony to

prey on eggs and chicks. Minimizing human disturbance at nest sites

reduces the energy reserves seabirds need to spend defending their nest

sites, reduces the susceptibility of nests to predation from other seabirds

(i.e. gulls), and reduces the time adult seabirds are kept away from their

nests. Closing nesting islands to public access during the breeding season

should improve the nesting success of the endangered roseate tern and

other seabird colonies.

Impacts from Proposed Habitat and Vegetation Management

We would protect, but not actively manage, the habitat on the six active

and four historic bald eagle nesting islands. Forests would be allowed to

mature under natural conditions, and natural forces would dictate any

significant changes. Mature forest conditions would also continue to

develop on 15 existing forested Refuge Complex islands, the mainland

divisions, and approximately 25% of the islands proposed for acquisition.

These developments would help to ensure continued availability of nesting areas for a growing population of bald eagles.
Chapter 4

4-64 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Habitat management techniques utilized for roseate tern nesting islands

would be similar to those described in the “Effects on Vegetation and

Habitat” for Alternative A. We would provide a variety of habitats including open field, bare ground, and certain species of vegetation which would

provide overhead cover to the terns. Roseate tern nests in the Northeast

are predominantly under cover such as dense vegetation, under rocks or

driftwood, or in artificial sites such as nest boxes (Spendelow 1982,

Burger and Gochfield 1988a, Gochfield et al. 1998). We would continue to

provide artificial nest structures for roseate terns nesting on Petit Manan

Island. We would evaluate the need to provide additional boxes on an

annual basis. Our actions would support recovery goals for this species,

but probably not contribute significantly.

Impacts from Proposed Wildlife Populations Management

After 20 years of active seabird restoration and predator management

activities along the Maine coast, the endangered roseate tern population

has increased 276%; from 76 pairs in 1984, to 285 pairs in 2002 (MDIFW

2002). Predator management remains a critical component of the restoration process, and population recovery for all three species of terns (roseate, Arctic, and common) would not have been possible without this

management tool. In the absence of predator management, we have

observed complete colony abandonment, decreased survival rates, or

elimination of productivity.

Under Alternative A, we would continue to utilize a variety of gull control

techniques including harassment, pyrotechnics, nest destruction, and

shooting on our six existing seabird restoration islands. The majority of

our predator management efforts have been, and would continue to be,

targeted at herring and great black-backed gulls. Predator management

efforts undertaken on the seabird restoration projects in Maine have not

adversely affected the State or regional population of gulls. Less than 10

gulls per year are lethally removed from the six Refuge Complex restoration islands. Current survey information indicates that 15,800 pairs of

great black-backed gulls are nesting on 231 islands in Maine. In addition,

28,290 pairs of herring gulls nest on 183 islands (Allen pers. comm.).

Control of nesting gulls on specific islands has resulted in significant

population increases for several species of seabirds. All four islands

supporting nesting roseate terns have ongoing predator management

programs. Information gathered on the restoration islands demonstrates

significantly higher site attendance, population growth, and survival rates

for both juvenile and adult seabirds as compared to sites where gulls are

not managed.

In addition to gull control, under Alternative A we would manage other

predators as warranted on seabird islands. The presence of a single mammalian predator (i.e. mink) or nocturnal avian predator (i.e. black crowned
Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-65

night heron or great horned owl) can have disastrous effects on nesting

seabirds. Mink have been observed killing large numbers of terns, and a

single mink is believed responsible for the drastic reduction in the NAS

Jenny Island colony that dropped from over 1,000 pairs of terns in 2000,

to 59 pairs in 2001 (Hall pers. comm.). Past experience has demonstrated

that without prompt and effective predator control measures a small

number of predators could significantly reduce the Maine roseate tern

population. Predator management measures for mammals and nocturnal

avian predators would continue to be targeted at individuals preying on the

tern colony. No significant local or regional population declines would be

expected.

Although predator management practices have resulted in a significant

population gain for roseate terns, the birds remain extremely vulnerable to

catastrophic events such as oil spills or disease outbreaks due to their

limited distribution and population size. In 2002, 95% of the Maine

roseate tern population was nesting on two islands, with the remaining 5%

of the birds nesting on two additional islands. While we remain optimistic

that roseate tern will initiate nesting on other existing restoration islands,

the threat of a single event eliminating the majority of the population

remains a significant concern.

Numerous other species of seabirds have benefitted from our predator

management efforts. Common and Arctic terns, laughing gulls, Atlantic

puffins, and razorbills have all expanded breeding populations on the

islands with active predator management. Common eiders have also

experienced increased duckling survival rates on the waters surrounding

the seabird restoration islands, as compared to regions with no gull control

(Mawhinney 1999).

Continued expansion of the bald eagle population could adversely affect

other seabird species. Within Maine, eagles nesting along the coast have

been found to forage primarily on gulls and cormorants (Welch 1994).

Eagles will also prey on common eiders and wading birds if they are

available. The presence of bald eagles nesting on islands adjacent to

seabird or wading bird nesting islands may result in increased predation

rates for those colonies. While we do not anticipate adverse effects on the

regional populations of seabirds or wading bird colonies, reductions in

individual colony productivity or site abandonment could result from

increased bald eagle predation.

Impacts from Proposed Land Acquisition and Protection

Bald Eagles: The primary goal of the Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan, which includes Maine, is self-sustaining populations of bald

eagles in suitable habitats. Protection and enhancement of eagle populations and their habitat continues to be a major focus of recovery plan

implementation. Conservation agencies agree that continued habitat loss

Alternative B (Service’s

Preferred Alternative)
Chapter 4

4-66 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

and degradation could reverse the current upward population trends.

Service acquisition of 87 additional islands proposed in Alternative B

would represent a significant contribution towards the recovery plan goal.

Currently, 37 of these islands support nesting bald eagles and represent the

highest protection priority need based on habitat integrity, length of

occupancy by eagles, absence of human disturbance, and strategic geographic importance in conserving the eagle population along the coast of

Maine (MDIFW 2003). Additional islands acquired under this alternative

would provide for future expansion of eagles into new nesting territories.

Service acquisition of these bald eagle nesting islands would also contribute in a major way towards the State goal of securing 150 bald eagle

nesting areas in conservation ownership. Once this goal is realized, the

species can be removed from the Maine Endangered Species list.

Roseate Terns: The primary objective of the Roseate Tern Recovery Plan

is to promote an increase in breeding population size, distribution, and

productivity. Service acquisition of active and historic roseate tern nesting

islands, public education, and restricted public access during sensitive

nesting periods would allow us to make an important contribution to

recovery. Under Alternative B, the Service would acquire two new islands

with historic roseate tern nest sites. Since the few known active Maine

colonies are concentrated on only four islands, protection of historic sites

would be very important to future restoration efforts. Many of the other

islands proposed for acquisition offer foraging habitat for these birds. Any

opportunities to increase the population and improve the geographic

distribution of these endangered species would promote recovery.

Impacts from Proposed Public Use and Access Management

Management of public access to minimize impacts to nesting bald eagles

and roseate terns would be similar to Alternative A; the only difference is

the number of islands affected. Both alternatives include the current

Refuge Complex islands; however, under Alternative B, an additional 87

islands would have seasonal public access restrictions. This island protection effort vastly improves nesting opportunities over the long-term,

especially for bald eagles. With adequate enforcement, human disturbance

would no longer be a threat at nesting sites.

Impacts from Proposed Habitat and Vegetation Management

Similar to Alternative A, we would protect, but not actively manage, the

mature forest stands that support bald eagle nesting habitat. We do not

predict any significant changes in the quality of nesting habitat over the

short-term. Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative A.

Under Alternative B, we would initiate six new seabird restoration projects.

Our habitat management objectives would be to provide suitable nesting

habitat for roseate, common, and Arctic terns and we anticipate that some
Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-67

vegetation management would be necessary on these islands. We would

utilize the variety of vegetation management techniques to enhance conditions for nesting terns that were described under Alternative A. Management efforts would not be applied to the entirety of the islands, so that a

diversity of vegetation communities and plant height would be available to

the birds. When appropriate, roseate tern nest boxes would be provided on

the new restoration islands. Enhancing habitat conditions for nesting

roseate terns would likely increase productivity, improve their distribution,

and eventually increase population numbers in coastal Maine. Our actions,

if successful, would make an important contribution to the recovery of the

roseate tern over the long-term.

Impacts from Proposed Wildlife Populations Management

Under Alternative B, we would continue to implement both lethal and

non-lethal predator management measures on the seabird restoration

projects. Lethal measures would only be used when, based on available

information, non-lethal measures would not produce the necessary reduction in an island’s gull populations. In addition to the methods described in

Alternative A, we would consider using the avicide DRC 1339 to remove

breeding populations of herring and great black-backed gulls from seabird

restoration islands. The avicide has typically been applied during the first

one to two years of restoration efforts on an island. Only gulls with established nesting territories are affected by this technique. It allows us to

lethally remove breeding gulls from an island in a few days. While this

may alter the local abundance of herring or black-backed gulls, it would

not affect regional or State population levels for either species.

DRC 1339 (3 Chloro-4-methyl benzenamine hydrochloride) has been

found to be highly toxic to gulls, but has low toxicity to non-target species, and decomposes rapidly. Laboratory tests showed DRC 1339 is lethal

to gulls, starlings, and blackbirds, yet considerably less toxic to most other species of birds and

relatively non-toxic to mammals. The product

decomposes rapidly to harmless by-products,

and, when applied properly, results in virtually no

accidental take of non-target species. Secondary

poisoning studies conducted on several raptors

found no secondary ill effects to the birds, even

when they consumed over 100 treated starlings.

In fact, we have not observed any non-target

species affected during our previous applications.

DCR 1339 is licensed only for use by Service and

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal Damage Control applicators who are certified pesticide application masters in the State which it is

used. The bait is prepared by mixing a small

Avicide-treated bread cubes are used to remove targeted

gulls
Chapter 4

4-68 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

amount of 1339 (6 grams) with 1 lb. of margarine which is then spread on

bread and cut into 9 individual cubes. The treated bread cubes are placed

within the gull nest, and are frequently consumed within minutes of

placement. Treatment occurs in spring when nesting gulls are aggressively

defending their territories. This assures that non-target species do not

consume the bait. Any unconsumed or regurgitated bait is collected within

12 hours of the application as an added safety measure. Once consumed,

the toxicant causes kidney failure resulting in a humane death within 24 -

72 hours. Carcasses are collected from the island and buried or provided

to educational institutions for research.

Through the use of DRC 1339, the Service and its partners have successfully restored seabirds to historic nesting sites at Petit Manan, Seal, Ship,

and Pond islands. While other methods of gull control exist, the Service

continues to support the use of DRC 1339 as the most effective and

efficient means of removing a large number of breeding gulls from a

restoration island.

The benefits of 20 years of active roseate tern management were described

in Alternative A. While the overall population has increased by 276%,

total number and distribution remain concerns. The number of pairs has

somewhat stabilized over the past five years (255-285 pairs), and 95% of

roseate terns breed on only two islands. New restoration projects are

necessary for continued population growth and viability. We anticipate the

six new restoration projects, continued predator control, and habitat

management efforts would result in continued population growth and the

establishment of additional roseate tern nesting colonies within Maine.

These efforts would continue to reduce the number of individual predators

in a local setting, but overall viability of regional or State predator populations would not be negatively impacted over the long term.

Impacts from Proposed Land Acquisition and Protection

Alternative C would include the benefits of Service acquisition related to

bald eagle habitat protection and cooperative seabird restoration efforts

identified in Alternative B. It would, however, further enhance the positive

impacts by permanently protecting all 151 nationally significant nesting

islands not currently in conservation ownership. The potential to dramatically improve the nesting populations and geographic distribution of

roseate terns and bald eagles is substantial. Long-term protection of

nesting sites has been identified as a high priority in the recovery effort for

both bald eagles and roseate terns (MDIFW 2001 and USFWS 1998).

Acquisition by the Service would remove all threats associated with

development of the islands and uncontrolled public access. In addition,

with permanent protection, these islands would continue to provide critical

nesting, foraging, and migratory habitat for a variety of other species of

conservation concern.

Alternative C
Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-69

Impacts from Proposed Public Use and Access Management

Management of public access to bald eagle and roseate tern nesting would

be similar to that detailed under Alternative B, although Alternative C

allows for some modifications to the closure period on an island-specific

basis, based on localized nesting conditions and species present. For

example, where Leach’s storm-petrel nest on an island, we would consider

extending the closure period through November 15th, since these birds are

known to be in their burrows until then. While much more labor intensive

for us, all nesting birds would be protected to the maximum extent possible.

Impacts from Proposed Habitat and Vegetation Management

Our habitat management objectives and techniques outlined under Alternative B would be expanded to 12 new restoration projects under Alternative C. Roseate terns would benefit directly from continued efforts to

manage vegetation and predator population levels on the 6 current and 12

new restoration islands. With regards to bald eagles, maintaining mature

forested conditions on coastal islands would ensure continued availability

of nesting and roosting habitat for a growing population. As a result of

implementing Alternative C, we would make a significant contribution

towards both State and Federal recovery goals for the roseate tern and bald

eagle.

Impacts from Proposed Wildlife Populations Management

Under Alternative C, the predator management techniques and their

impacts outlined for Alternative B would be implemented on the 12 new

seabird restoration projects. Our goal in establishing additional restoration

projects would be to increase the geographic distribution of the roseate

tern and other seabird colonies. Similar to Alternative B, we do not predict

that regional or Statewide populations of herring or black-backed gulls

would be significantly affected by our control measures, while we would

dramatically reduce local populations on restoration islands.

Impacts from Proposed Land Acquisition and Protection

Under Alternative D, land acquisition would be limited to the 467.1 acres

currently within Petit Manan Refuge’s approved boundary. While some of

this includes potential bald eagle nesting habitat, no new active nest sites

would be acquired. Under Alternative D, we would also not pursue ownership of any of the 151 unprotected nationally significant nesting islands.

As such, no additional roseate tern nesting islands would be acquired by

the Service and no new seabird restoration projects would be initiated.

Instead, we would encourage protection of these islands by our conservation partners. Most islands requiring active management or enforcement

would receive less protection under this alternative because many of our

Alternative D
Chapter 4

4-70 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

conservation partners do not have the staffing and resources to purchase

the land and/or to fully engage in seabird management. Without Service

acquisition or significant increases in our partners’ ability to purchase and

manage nesting islands, the State population of bald eagles and roseate

terns could decline over the long-term. Roseate tern, in particular, would

be at risk because the colonies are so few and so poorly distributed. A

single catastrophic event could eliminate the population. In other words,

their decline could be more dramatic without additional protection.

Impacts from Proposed Public Use and Access Management

Under Alternative D, all Refuge Complex islands would be closed to

public access year round, thus minimizing all risk from human disturbance

on nesting islands. However, since islands are currently closed during the

most sensitive nesting period, we would not anticipate that closing the

islands year round would result in a dramatic positive response by either

bald eagles or roseate terns. In other words, we would not expect a significant increase in population for either species over the long-term.

Impacts from Proposed Habitat and Vegetation Management

Under Alternative D, we would utilize a custodial approach to wildlife and

habitat management, and minimize survey efforts and data collection.

Monitoring efforts would be limited to a few high priority seabird species

such as roseate tern. We would eliminate the use of sheep grazing, herbicides, mowing, and burning as habitat management tools. The resulting

development of rank vegetation would exclude nesting terns over the

long-term. A reduction in predator control efforts would further negatively

impact suitable nesting conditions for roseate terns.

There would be insufficient staff time and

dollars to complete baseline surveys, map

vegetation, conduct research programs, and

census birds. This lack of information would

limit our ability to monitor threats to endangered and threatened wildlife populations. In

summary, this alternative would not provide us

with the tools necessary to effectively protect

the tern colonies, and, at a minimum, we

would anticipate a reduction in roseate tern

nesting distribution and possibly a reduction in

population size.

We would not anticipate any short-term effects

to bald eagle nesting habitat since the mature

conifer and conifer-mixed stands would be

Common tern on nest with chick

Photo by Bill Silliker, Jr.
Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-71

allowed to grow unimpeded, similar to Alternative A. However, the continued, incremental loss of unprotected coastal nesting areas to development expected under this alternative would significantly affect the longterm viability and growth of the State’s population.

Impacts from Proposed Wildlife Populations Management

Under Alternative D, we would be limited to non-lethal predator control

measures. This change in management practices would significantly

reduce our ability to manage and protect endangered roseate tern colonies

along the coast of Maine. Past records indicate that when gull control

measures have been reduced or eliminated, herring and great black-backed

gulls have rapidly repopulated the tern islands. As observed on Petit

Manan Island in the late 1970’s, terns will completely abandon these

islands when gulls reestablish nesting colonies. Over 90% of all terns

nesting in Maine are nesting on islands with active gull control. In our

experience, we would need the flexibility to employ any gull control

techniques mentioned in Alternative B to be effective. Limits on gull

control methods, as proposed in Alternative D, would significantly reduce

our ability to contribute to the recovery efforts outlined in the Roseate

Tern Recovery Plan (USFWS 1998) and would likely result in a decline in

roseate tern distribution, productivity, and survival rates.

We do not anticipate that this use of only non-lethal methods would affect

recovery efforts for bald eagles because predators are not the limiting

factor in increasing bald eagle populations. Should a mammalian predator

situation arise at a nest site, we would continue to utilize “flashing material”

to prevent the mammal from climbing the nest tree and reaching the eaglets.

Under Alternative D there would be no direct loss to predator populations

on a local, regional, or State level as no lethal control measures would be

used.

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

nesting roseate terns and bald eagles on existing Refuge Complex lands.

Alternative D would close Refuge Complex islands to public use year

round. Roseate terns are nesting on two Refuge Complex islands and bald

eagles are nesting on four islands and the Gouldsboro Bay Division.

Alternatives A, B and C would continue to manage the 6 seabird restoration projects which provide nesting and/or foraging sites for roseate tern.

Alternative C, with the largest expansion proposal, would provide the greatest

long-term benefits to roseate tern and bald eagles by protecting existing

and potential future nesting sites. It would contribute the most to species’

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

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

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

Threatened and

Endangered Species -

Summary
Chapter 4

4-72 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Impacts from Proposed Land Acquisition and Protection

Service acquisition of the 467.1 acres currently within the approved Petit

Manan Refuge boundary and 30 additional nationally significant seabird,

wading bird, waterfowl, and bald eagle nesting islands would permanently

protect these areas from one of the principle threats facing coastal habitats: habitat degradation resulting from development. We do not anticipate

any active habitat management on the coastal islands acquired under this

alternative. Existing habitat conditions would continue to provide suitable

nesting habitat for seabirds, wading birds and waterfowl over the shortterm, including: common eider, herring and great black-backed gulls, great

blue heron, and Leach’s storm-petrel. Unfortunately, without active predator or habitat management, it is unlikely that significant numbers of terns

or alcids would initiate nesting on any of these islands over the long-term.

The proposed acquisition would support the land protection objectives

outlined in the USFWS Tern Plan and the MDIFW Species Assessment

Plans for: Atlantic puffin, razorbill, common eider, and Leach’s stormpetrel. Permanent protection of additional seabird, wading bird, and

waterfowl nesting islands would insure these sites continue to provide

critical nesting, foraging, and migratory habitat for a variety of species of

conservation concern. It would also improve the distribution of protected

nesting islands.

Service acquisition of the 95 acre Sawyers Marsh, adjacent to the Refuge

Complex’s Sawyers Marsh Division, would ensure that this entire area

permanently protects valuable nesting, feeding, and migratory habitat to a

variety of waterfowl, wading bird, and shorebird species over the long-term.

Impacts from Proposed Public Use and Access Management

Under Alternative A, we would continue to close all seabird, waterfowl,

and wading bird nesting islands to public visitation between April 1 -

August 31. Minimizing human disturbance on

nesting islands would reduce the energy

reserves these birds spend defending their

nests, and would minimize the susceptibility of

nests to predation from other seabirds (i.e.

gulls). Closing islands to public visitation

during the nesting season would also improve

the nesting success of these colonies.

We would continue to conduct outreach and

educate local rockweed harvesters about the

importance of rockweed to wildlife and to

explain Service regulations (50 CFR27.51(a))

that protect vegetation harvesting within

national wildlife refuges. Rockweed, and the

variety of invertebrates that can be found on

Effects on Seabirds,

Wading Birds, and

Waterfowl

Alternative A (Current

Management)

Common eider hen on nest

USFWS photo
Effects on Seabirds, Wading Birds, and Waterfowl

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-73

the plants, provide a vitally important forage to nesting, migratory, and

wintering populations of waterfowl and shorebirds (Bannerman 1960,

Mawhinney 1999, Mittelhauser 2000). Its continued availability to these

species’ diet helps them maintain or enhance their body conditions during

critical times of the year, most importantly, during nesting and migration.

Available information indicates that human disturbance associated with

hunting may cause waterfowl species to alter their feeding behavior and

diet composition, change distribution patterns, and increase their energy

expenditure as they flee these disturbances. The combined result may be a

reduction in overall body condition of the birds. We would maintain nohunting areas on Petit Manan Point Division and Bois Bubert Island, two

areas frequented by waterfowl on the Refuge Complex. These no-hunting

areas would provide the birds with high security, high quality forage areas,

and contribute to better overall body condition of waterfowl using this

portion of the Refuge Complex.

We would continue to allow waterfowl hunting on 22 Refuge Complex

islands. In addition, the inter-tidal areas surrounding all Refuge Complex

islands would remain open to hunting under Colonial Ordinance regulations. As new islands are acquired, we would evaluate each island to

determine if it should be open to hunting. Although we have not quantified

the level of harvest associated with Refuge Complex islands, we do not

believe that many of the islands receive significant hunting pressure due to

their distance from the mainland and availability of other hunting locations. We would not anticipate a significant number of waterfowl would be

harvested from these new additions to the Refuge Complex. Further, State

and Federal regulations determine waterfowl harvest limits based on an

analysis of the entire Atlantic flyway population. Our hunt program tiers

to these regulations.

Impacts from Proposed Habitat and Vegetation Management

Under Alternative A, vegetation on the majority of the Refuge Complex

islands would not be actively managed. Natural processes would be the

dominant force resulting in any changes to the vegetation communities.

Common eider would benefit from the development of rank vegetation

and the seasonal closures of the islands. On the six restoration islands, we

would continue efforts to enhance nesting habitat for common, Arctic, and

roseate terns using the following methods:

Open field/grassland: On portions of our seabird restoration islands, we

would continue to reduce rank vegetation in an effort to provide common

and Arctic terns with suitable nesting habitat. Vegetation management

techniques already described for Alternative A in the section: Effects to

Vegetation and Habitat, would continue on all six restoration islands. To

date, our management has been intermittent, but we have observed a

positive response from seabirds, as nesting success and nest density have
Chapter 4

4-74 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

increased. We would not anticipate any significant change in the level of

management intensity during the next 15 years, but we would anticipate

maintaining or increasing the number of tern nests and individual nest

productivity.

We would continue to allow sheep to graze on two islands. Grazing results

in a reduction in plant density and height, and potentially causes soil

compaction and erosion. It is possible that sheep grazing could limit the

availability of suitable nesting habitat for species which prefer rank

vegetation (e.g. common eider and laughing gull), or burrow nesters such

as Leach’s storm-petrels. However, common and Arctic terns would

benefit from reduction in rank vegetation, whether we use grazing or

mechanical techniques. We would expect increased tern nesting densities

in areas where vegetation is managed. We would minimize the adverse

effects on species such as common eider and laughing gull by allowing

rank vegetation to develop on portions of the restoration islands.

Construction of artificial nest structures or boxes: We would continue

to provide artificial nest burrows on Petit Manan Island for nesting alcids.

The burrows would provide the birds with increased nesting opportunity,

and would hopefully result in continued population growth for both

Atlantic puffins and razorbills. We would also provide nest boxes for

roseate terns on Petit Manan and Metinic islands, which benefits common

tern chicks who frequently use the boxes for shelter. We would anticipate

increased chick survival at nest sites provided with nest boxes.

Freshwater impoundments and saltmarshes: We would continue to

maintain the three existing freshwater impoundments on the Petit Manan

Point Division. These areas would continue to provide foraging and

roosting habitat for thousands of migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, and

wading birds. In addition, our protection of saltmarshes on Gouldsboro

Bay and Sawyers Marsh divisions would also maintain extensive foraging

habitat for a variety of species of conservation concern, namely waterfowl,

wading birds, and shorebirds.

Impacts from Proposed Wildlife Populations Management

Predator Management: We would continue to use the predator management measures on the six seabird restoration projects previously discussed

for Alternative A in the section: Effects on Threatened and Endangered

Species. These measures include lethal and non-lethal techniques to

control herring and black-backed gulls, mammals, and nocturnal avian

predators. We would anticipate that all the seabirds nesting on the restoration islands would continue to benefit from these management actions,

and would experience greater productivity and survival rates. Over the

long-term various other factors would also contribute to a successful

seabird colony (i.e. island protection, habitat management, seasonal

closures, social attraction), predator management remains a significant
Effects on Seabirds, Wading Birds, and Waterfowl

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-75

component of the restoration process within Maine. Over 90% of the tern

population, and all of the Atlantic puffin and laughing gull populations are

nesting on islands where predators are managed.

Intensive, cooperative management by members

of GOMSWG has reversed the tern and alcid

population declines that occurred for much of the

past century. Atlantic puffins, razorbills, common, Arctic, and roseate terns have all experienced significant population growth during the

past 20 years. In the Gulf of Maine, the common

tern population has increased 168% (2,543 to

6,806 pairs)and the State-threatened population

of Arctic terns has increased 73% (1,720 to 2,975

pairs). In Maine, the roseate tern population has

increased 278% (76 to 289 pairs). This level of

population growth would not have been possible

without active predator management efforts.

Although we cannot predict the population growth that would be achieved

during the next 15 years of seabird restoration efforts on Refuge Complex

islands, it is reasonable to assume that we would continue major steps

towards seabird recovery of historic population levels. Three island

projects: Ship, Metinic, and Pond islands, have been established in the

past 5-10 years and would be expected to experience considerable population growth in future years. We would not anticipate the establishment of

any additional large tern colonies on islands without aggressive predator

control measures, and no new restoration projects are proposed under this

alternative. As a result, we would expect continued population growth for

the three species of terns and several species of alcids on established

colonies, but not an expansion in colony number or distribution.

Herring and great black-backed gulls: Despite gull control measures on

the six restoration islands, we would continue to acquire and protect

islands that support populations of nesting herring and great black-backed

gulls. These gulls are important components of the Gulf of Maine ecosystem and contribute to overall seabird diversity. Based on past experience,

only a small number of gulls (<10 individuals) would likely be lethally

removed each season from the six restoration islands, and no gulls would

be allowed to nest within the restoration areas. We do not anticipate any

significant regional or State population level declines for either species of

gull as a result of our management. Further, removal of individual, predatory gulls from the restoration islands would allow a variety of species of

concern including common, Arctic, and roseate terns, Atlantic puffins,

razorbills, common eider, and black guillemot to experience increased

productivity and survival rates.

Laughing gulls: We would continue to limit the number and distribution

of laughing gulls nesting on Petit Manan Island using non-lethal techAtlantic puffin courtship

USFWS photo
Chapter 4

4-76 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

niques. This management action would result in a reduction of laughing

gulls nesting on the island, and an overall reduction in the number of gull

chicks produced at the colony. No adult birds would be killed; we would

simply discourage or disrupt their nesting through a variety of harassment

techniques. As experienced in 2002, tern nesting density, distribution, and

productivity would be expected to increase as a result of this management

action.

Impacts from Proposed Land Acquisition and Protection

In addition to the 467.1 acres currently within the approved Petit Manan

Refuge boundary, the Service would acquire 87 nationally significant bald

eagle, wading bird, waterfowl, or colonial nesting seabird islands which

lack permanent protection from habitat degradation caused by development. Specifically, this alternative would protect the remaining 55 seabird

and wading bird islands currently lacking permanent protection in Maine.

The remaining 32 islands proposed for acquisition support nesting bald

eagles. As a result, Service acquisition of these 87 islands would provide

permanent nesting, foraging, and migratory habitat for an incredible

diversity of species of conservation concern. Permanent conservation

ownership of nesting sites has been identified as a high priority by both

the Service and MDIFW in meeting the recovery objectives for the seabirds, wading birds, and waterfowl species nesting on the islands. The

Regional Waterbird Plan and the Atlantic Northern Forest Bird Conservation Plan also recommend that actions be taken to increase nesting opportunities for roseate tern, razorbill, and Atlantic puffin. Service acquisition

would remove all threats associated with land development and uncontrolled public access. Through acquisition, seabird habitat restoration, and

cooperative research, the Service would provide leadership in accomplishing the goals of the various regional conservation plans.

Impacts from Proposed Public Use and Access Management

Similar to Alternative A, all existing and proposed nesting islands would

have seasonal public use restrictions to protect nesting birds. In an effort

to increase opportunities for public access, we would modify current

seasonal closure dates for all eider- and gull-only nesting islands to April 1

- July 31. There are 9 existing Refuge Complex islands and 6 proposed

acquisition islands that would have this shorter closure period. This

modification recognizes the fact that common eider and most gull species

nest earlier and therefore fledge young sooner than seabirds and bald

eagles. We would allow earlier public access and not impact nesting birds.

All other seabird and wading bird and waterfowl nesting islands would

remain closed until August 31. Minimizing human disturbance at nest sites

would reduce the energy reserves these birds spend defending their nests,

would minimize the susceptibility of nests to predation from other seabirds

Alternative B (Service’s

Preferred Alternative)
Effects on Seabirds, Wading Birds, and Waterfowl

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-77

(i.e. gulls), and should improve the nesting success for a variety of other

birds of conservation concern.

On an annual basis, we would evaluate recently acquired islands for

inclusion in our waterfowl hunting program. Alternative B includes the

same waterfowl hunting program proposed in Alternative A and the

impacts would be similar. Generally, we do not anticipate a significant

increase in hunting pressure. Further, with harvest levels set by Federal

and State regulations, based on the entire flyway population, we would not

expect to negatively affect waterfowl populations over the long-term.

Impacts from Proposed Habitat and Vegetation Management

Open Field: Under Alternative B, we would continue to utilize the habitat

management techniques outlined in Alternative A on the six existing and

six proposed seabird restoration projects. We would anticipate that some

level of vegetation management would be necessary on all of these islands

within the next 15 years. Our efforts to reduce the amount of rank vegetation on portions of the islands would increase nesting opportunities for all

three species of terns. Vegetation outside of the tern restoration area would

be allowed to grow under natural conditions, and would therefore provide

suitable nesting habitat for species such as common eider and laughing

gulls. The habitat on the non-restoration islands would not be actively

managed unless new information or major changes warranted actions to:

1)benefit threatened and endangered species; 2) promote biological diversity; 3) reduce hazardous fuels and debris; or, 4)control invasive or exotic

species. Natural forces and plant succession patterns would be the prevailing factors dictating changes to the habitat conditions on the majority of

the islands in the Refuge Complex. Over the short-term, these islands

would continue to provide important nesting habitat for species of concern. Under Alternative B, we would also continue to create nest burrows

for alcids and utilize nest boxes as described in Alternative A to increase

nesting habitat for roseate terns.

Forested and Scrub-Shrub: We would maintain forested and scrub-shrub

conditions on a number of the islands to provide nesting habitat for wading birds. While we do not anticipate the need for active management in

these habitat types over the next 15 years, long-term management may

include mechanical and prescribed fire treatment to maintain the scrubshrub community. This would ensure that the wading birds continue to

have a diversity of nesting areas better distributed along coastal islands.

These islands would be closed to public visitation during the nesting

season, April 1 - August 31.

Freshwater impoundments and saltmarshes: Under Alternative B, we

would maintain the existing saltmarsh and estuarine habitat located on

Cross Island and Sawyers Marsh, Gouldsboro Bay and Petit Manan Point

divisions, to ensure the quality and natural function of the marshes are
Chapter 4

4-78 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

sustained. Service acquisition of the marshes and the adjacent upland

habitat protects these sites from the adverse effects associated with development of surrounding uplands. As a result, these areas would continue to

provide a diverse group of waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds with

high quality foraging and wintering habitat over the long-term.

We would continue to manage the three large wetland complexes (Meadow

Brook, Mague Flowage, and Cranberry impoundment) on the Petit Manan

Point Division. These areas would provide waterfowl and wading birds

with open and shallow water marshes for nesting and foraging. We would

evaluate opportunities to introduce wild rice into Mague Flowage to

further enhance foraging for migrating waterfowl. These wetlands would

not be open to hunting and would provide migrating waterfowl with

additional high quality forage, in areas free from human disturbance. We

would anticipate that enhancing forage quality in this area would contribute to improved body condition and survival rates of migrating waterfowl

using this area of the Refuge Complex.

Impacts from Wildlife Populations Management

Bald Eagle: Increasing bald eagle nesting density and distribution along

the Maine coast could adversely affect wading bird colonies and common

eider nesting areas. Eagles routinely prey on adult and juvenile birds, and

have been associated with great blue heron colony abandonment.

Predator Management: Similar to Alternative A, we would continue

predator management efforts on all six existing seabird restoration islands.

In addition, under Alternative B we would expand these efforts to the six

proposed new restoration projects. Specific predator management techniques would be the same as those we described in Alternative A. These

efforts would continue to reduce the number of individual predators in a

local setting, but the viability of the State or regional predator populations would not be altered as a result of our management actions. The

majority of our predator management efforts have been, and would continue to be, targeted at herring and great black-backed gulls on seabird

restoration islands. While our control efforts have not significantly altered

population levels of gulls, local control of nesting gulls has significantly

enhanced population levels for common, Arctic, and roseate terns, Atlantic

puffins and razorbills. Management for individual mammal and nocturnal

avian predators would also be continued on the 12 restoration projects.

Efforts to control individual mammalian and nocturnal avian predators

might be extended to other islands as warranted to protect nesting colonies. Information gathered on the islands with predator management

programs demonstrates significantly higher levels of site attendance,

population growth, and survival rates for both juvenile and adult seabirds.

The species described below would all benefit from continued predator

management.
Effects on Seabirds, Wading Birds, and Waterfowl

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-79

Alcids: Under Alternative B, we would initiate steps to increase the

number of active alcid colonies on Refuge Complex islands through the

establishment of six additional seabird restoration projects. Our goal

would be to increase the number of Atlantic puffins and razorbills by 50%

(using 2000 nesting season estimates as a baseline), and maintain a minimum productivity level of 0.5 fledged chicks/pair. We would continue

island acquisition, predator control, and if necessary habitat manipulation.

Increasing the population size, productivity, and distribution of Atlantic

puffin and razorbill colonies would help to secure the long-term viability

of these populations, contribute to the overall seabird diversity of the Gulf

of Maine, and contribute to MDIFW recovery efforts for these Statethreatened species (MDIFW 1999).

Leach’s storm-petrel: Under Alternative B, our goal would be to maintain or increase the number of Leach’s storm-petrels nesting on Refuge

Complex islands and initiate efforts to maintain a productivity level of 0.5

fledged chicks/pair. As warranted by monitoring, we would enhance nesting

habitat on the islands by providing structures for petrels to burrow under.

Currently, 75% of the petrels in Maine nest on two islands which lie

approximately one mile apart (MDIFW 1999). As a result, the birds remain

particularly susceptible to catastrophic events such as oil spills or disease.

Increasing the population size, distribution, and productivity of the Leach’s

storm-petrels nesting on Refuge Complex islands would significantly

contribute to the long-term viability of this species within the Gulf of Maine.

Laughing gulls: In conjunction with our efforts to reduce the breeding

population of laughing gulls on Petit Manan Island as described in Alternative A, we would explore methods to encourage these gulls to initiate

nesting on other islands. This would allow the laughing gull population to

continue to expand in Maine, without adversely affecting nesting terns.

We anticipate this would require herring and great black-backed gull

control, as laughing gulls are currently nesting only on islands with active

predator management programs.

Common eider: Common eider would continue to benefit from our land

protection efforts and “hands-off” approach to habitat management on the

majority of the Refuge Complex islands. Predator control efforts on the

seabird restoration islands would significantly increase nesting success

and duckling survival rates. On the tern restoration islands, efforts to

maintain open field conditions for the nesting terns would be limited to

portions of the island. This would allow rank vegetation to develop and

provide eiders with appropriate nesting habitat.

Common murre: We would continue efforts to establish a common murre

breeding colony within Maine. Murre have not bred in Maine for over 100

years and restoring this species as a breeding component of the Gulf of

Maine ecosystem would represent a significant milestone in our efforts to

restore the biological diversity of the region. As with other seabirds, our
Chapter 4

4-80 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

management actions would continue to be island protection, predator

management, and habitat manipulation as warranted. More information is

needed on the limiting factor for this species.

Impacts from Proposed Land Acquisition and Protection

In addition to the 467.1 acres currently within the approved Petit Manan

Refuge boundary, the Service would acquire all 151, or portions of larger

(>200 acre) nationally significant bald eagle, wading bird, waterfowl, or

colonial nesting seabird islands which lack permanent protection by a

conservation organization. As a result, the islands would continue to

provide long-term nesting, foraging, and migratory habitat for a variety of

species of conservation concern. Permanent protection by a conservation

organization of these nesting islands has been identified as a high priority

in the recovery effort for a large number of these species. Service acquisition would remove all threats associated with development of the islands

and uncontrolled public access.

Impacts from Proposed Public Use and Access Management

Management of public access and the resulting impacts would be similar

to that described under Alternative B.

Impacts from Proposed Habitat and Vegetation Management

The habitat management objectives and techniques outlined under Alternative B would be expanded to 12 new restoration projects (e.g.18 restoration projects total). We have not yet identified which islands would support the new restoration projects; therefore, it is not possible to thoroughly

evaluate the habitat management requirements. We would strive to establish well-distributed sites which provide a diversity of habitats in an effort

to accommodate the habitat requirements for these species of concern.

We anticipate that our combined predator control and habitat management

efforts on the 18 total restoration projects would result in significant

population growth and increased geographic distribution of colonies for

common, Arctic, and roseate terns, Atlantic puffins, and razorbills. Generally, we predict common eider and laughing gulls would benefit as well

(i.e. increased nesting success and juvenile survival) from our land protection and predator control efforts. On the other hand, the benefits to common eider on a few islands would be diminished by any extensive control

of rank vegetation and increased level of human activity that might occur

on restoration islands.

Impacts from Proposed Wildlife Populations Management

Under Alternative C, we would continue to use the predator control

measures outlined in Alternatives A and B, expanding the scope to include

Alternative C
Effects on Seabirds, Wading Birds, and Waterfowl

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-81

12 new restoration projects. The consequences would be similar to those

discussed in Alternative B. Despite an increased number of islands with

gull control, the viability of the State population of herring and great

black-backed gulls would not be affected by our actions. Gulls are nesting

on hundreds of islands (231 islands for great black-backed and 183 islands

for herring gulls) and our control efforts would only occur on the 18

seabird restoration islands. Our actions would be very limited in proportion to the overall state population. However, an individual island population of gulls could be markedly reduced if a new restoration project

utilized DRC 1339. It is a very effective avicide specific to gulls, as we

have previously discussed.

All of the benefits to specific seabird populations described in Alternative

B would also result in Alternative C. This alternative provides permanent

protection and management for all known, unprotected, naturally significant seabird nesting islands in Maine.

Impacts from Proposed Land Acquisition and Protection

Under Alternative D, Service acquisition would be limited to the 467.1

acres currently within Petit Manan Refuge’s approved boundary. This

would leave all 151 unprotected nationally significant bald eagle, wading

bird, waterfowl, and nesting seabird islands without the permanent protection afforded by conservation ownership. Our hope would be that our

conservation partners would be able to protect some of these islands,

reducing the risk of development. Some coastal islands would remain

vulnerable to development, and we would likely see gradual habitat loss

for a variety of seabird, waterfowl, and wading bird species.

Impacts from Proposed Public Use and Access Management

Under Alternative D, all Refuge Complex islands would be closed to

public access year round. Since we currently close the islands to public

use during the most sensitive time of year, we would not anticipate that

closing the islands to hunting and public access for the rest of the year

would offer any significant benefit to most of these birds. Negligible

benefits may be realized by migrating birds who would not encounter

human disturbance, saving energy reserves.

Impacts from Proposed Habitat and Vegetation Management

Under Alternative D, we would use a custodial approach to habitat management, and minimize surveys and monitoring to conducting only a few

high priority seabird species. We would eliminate the use of sheep grazing, herbicides, mowing, and burning as habitat management tools. The

resulting development of rank vegetation and the elimination of lethal

predator control measures would result in significant reductions in tern

Alternative D
Chapter 4

4-82 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

productivity and survival rates. We would not be able to contribute to

Service and MDIFW recovery objectives for a diverse group of species.

The laughing gull population nesting on Petit Manan Island would likely

increase in number and distribution over the next 15 years as a result of

increased availability of rank vegetation and decreased control efforts

targeted at this species. However, over the long-term we would anticipate

a decrease in nesting numbers for all three species of terns and laughing

gulls due to the predicted increase in numbers of and predation by herring

and great black-backed gulls.

Impacts from Proposed Wildlife Populations Management

We would limit ourselves to non-lethal predator control measures under

Alternative D. This change in management practices would significantly

reduce our ability to manage and protect alcid and tern colonies along the

coast of Maine. Past records indicate that when gull control measures have

been eliminated, herring and great black-backed gulls have rapidly repopulated the tern islands. The result has been a reduction in tern productivity or complete abandonment of the island by the nesting terns. Within a

short time period we would anticipate an overall reduction or elimination

of tern populations on our managed islands. Currently, over 90% of all

terns nesting in Maine are nesting on the 10 islands with active gull

control. This alternative would significantly reduce our ability to contribute to the recovery efforts outlined in the Roseate Tern Recovery Plan

(USFWS 1998), USFWS Tern Plan (USFWS 2002), and MDIFW Species

Assessments. The Refuge Complex tern and alcid colonies represent the

largest colonies in Maine, and loss of these colonies would significantly

affect the population size, geographic distribution, and recovery potential

for these and a variety of other seabird species.

We would not manage the laughing gull population on Petit Manan Island.

This management action, when combined with a “hands-off” approach to

vegetation management, would allow the gull colony to continue expanding across the island. In the short-term, their predation on tern eggs and

chicks would increase markedly. We would expect a significant reduction

in tern productivity and nesting distribution as a result of this alternative.

Over the long-term, we predict laughing gull numbers would also decrease

as a result of increased herring and great black-backed gull numbers.

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

Refuge Complex islands during the seabird nesting season, which is

inclusive of the nesting seasons for wading birds and waterfowl. Alternative D would close all Refuge Complex islands to public use year round.

All alternatives would maintain the freshwater impoundments on the Petit

Manan Point Division which is important to thousands of migrating

waterfowl and wading birds.

Seabirds, Wading Birds,

and Waterfowl -

Summary
Effects on Other Native Wildlife of Management Concern

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-83

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

new seabird restoration sites, would provide the greatest benefit to these

species. It would also identify important wading bird and waterfowl

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

next largest expansion proposal and 6 proposed new seabird restoration

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

A with a smaller expansion and continued management of 6 seabird

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

dramatically scale back current seabird restoration efforts on the 6 sites.

The majority of our biological survey efforts to date have focused on bird

species which breed or winter on the Refuge Complex. Current information indicates that 218 species of birds breed in Maine (Gawler et. al.

1996), while 114 species have been confirmed breeding on the Refuge

Complex. In addition, we have recorded 320 species of birds on, or adjacent to, the Refuge Complex during some portion of the year.

The Refuge Complex islands stretch over 200 air-miles of the coastline,

functioning as stepping stones along the Atlantic Coast migratory bird

pathway. Preliminary data indicates that coastal islands may play a significant role as migratory stopover and feeding sites for many species of

migratory birds (R. Suomala pers. comm. and Drury and Goodhue 1998).

Impacts from Proposed Land Acquisition and Protection

Alternative A includes Service acquisition of the 467.1 acres currently

within the approved Petit Manan Refuge boundary and 30 additional

nationally significant unprotected nesting islands. Although the primary

purpose for acquisition is to protect nesting habitat for seabirds, wading

birds, waterfowl, and bald eagles, a wide variety of wildlife species would

also benefit from this land protection effort. These include Neotropical

migrants, shorebirds, raptors, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. The

migrating bird species, in particular, would benefit from reduced threat of

development on coastal islands.

Acquisition of the 95 acre Sawyers Marsh, adjacent to the Refuge Complex’s

Sawyers Marsh Division would ensure that this area would continue to

provide valuable nesting, feeding, and migratory habitat to a variety of

wetland-dependent species of concern. We have already acquired much of

the surrounding upland habitat, and purchasing the saltmarsh secures the

core of this valuable habitat area.

Impacts from Proposed Public Use and Access Management

The seasonal public access restriction to nesting islands would benefit

many other island residents as well, namely nesting and migrating birds.

Effects on Other

Native Wildlife of

Management

Concern

Alternative A

(Current Management)
Chapter 4

4-84 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Other species, such as amphibians, reptiles, or small mammals, would

likely be unaffected by the closures.

As we previously described for Alternative A, we would continue to

educate local rockweed harvesters about Service regulations (50 CFR27.51(a))

and enforce regulations that protect vegetation within national wildlife

refuges from harvesting. Protecting rockweed and the variety of invertebrates that can be found on the plants would provide migratory and wintering populations of waterfowl and shorebirds with a rich diversity of

forage species (Bannerman 1960, Mawhinney 1999, Mittelhauser 2000).

Maintaining intertidal plants and their associated invertebrates should help

waterfowl and shorebird species maintain or enhance their body conditions during various stages of their annual cycles, and, most importantly,

during migration.

Sawyers Marsh and Gouldsboro Bay divisions are open to hunting of

migratory game birds and waterfowl, and small and big game. Bois Bubert

Island is open to white-tailed deer hunting. Petit Manan Point Division

would remain closed to all hunting. Based on observations by our staff and

discussions with local hunters, the number of individuals hunting on these

divisions is small. We believe that the number of animals harvested from

the Refuge Complex is also small, and we would therefore not expect any

significant regional or State population decline to result from our hunt

program.

Impacts from Proposed Habitat and Vegetation Management

Under Alternative A, we would not implement significant changes to

habitat types. We expect that the diversity of habitats currently found on

the Refuge Complex would continue to maintain the wide array of avian

species with the necessary breeding, foraging, roosting, migratory, or

wintering habitat they require.

Grassland Breeding Birds: Under Alternative A, we would maintain an

active grassland management program on Petit Manan Point Division

through the use of prescribed fire and mowing as previously described for

Alternative A in the section: Effects on Vegetation and Habitat. We would

continue to utilize spring (April and May) and fall (September, October,

and November) burning schedules in an effort to avoid the migratory bird

nesting season. We would maintain 65 acres in early-successional open

field habitat (i.e. blueberry barrens and native, cool season grasses) through

a three to five year rotation of prescribed burning and mowing among the

11 units. This effort would stimulate blueberry production and nutrient

recycling, rejuvenating grassland communities used by migratory and

nesting songbirds, small mammals and white-tailed deer. Maintaining the

open field/grassland habitat on Petit Manan Point would provide nesting

habitat for landbirds of conservation priority within PIF Area 28 such as

bobolink, northern harrier, and eastern meadowlark, and provide spring
Effects on Other Native Wildlife of Management Concern

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-85

“singing” habitat for American woodcock, another species of high conservation priority in this area. Grassland habitat would also be managed on

the six seabird restoration islands, benefitting a diverse array of migratory

bird species with nesting and foraging habitat.

Neotropical migrants, Shorebirds, and Raptors: Refuge Complex

islands play a significant role during Neotropical migrant, shorebird, and

raptor migrations. The diversity of habitats and prey species provided by

the coastal islands and the inter-tidal areas surrounding the islands offers

an extensive foraging base for these species groups. Interestingly, the

concentrations of Neotropical migrants and shorebirds feeding and roosting on the islands provide abundant foraging opportunities for raptors.

Our seasonal technicians working on the six seabird restoration islands

monitor Neotropical migrant use of the islands, and have documented over

100 species during the brief seabird nesting season. The seabird crews also

document raptor (i.e peregrine falcons, bald eagles, and merlins) predation

rates on the island and adjacent waters. Limited studies contracted by us

indicate that a considerable number of raptors utilize offshore islands as

foraging areas during their fall migrations (Drury and Goodhue 1998).

Service acquisition and protection of coastal islands and mainland properties outlined in this alternative would assure these areas continue to

provide a diverse group of Neotropical migrants, shorebirds, and raptors

with critical foraging and roosting areas.

Terrestrial and Marine Mammals: We have not conducted a comprehensive inventory of mammals. When possible, we have live-trapped

small mammals on some of our coastal islands as part of our baseline

inventory efforts. As expected, terrestrial mammal diversity and abundance on the coastal islands is limited by the distance from the mainland

and habitat provided by the islands. The marine waters adjacent to the

Refuge Complex provide abundant habitat for a diverse array of marine

species, including gray and harbor seals, harbor

porpoise, and a variety of whales. Researchers at

the University of Maine conduct periodic inventories of seal haul-out and pupping ledges, and

then share with us the inventory results.

With the exception of species occurring at the

geographic extreme of their range (i.e., lynx), we

anticipate that the majority of mammals found in

Maine would find suitable habitat on some

portion of the Refuge Complex. Generally, we do

not predict significant changes to mammalian

diversity or overall population levels, since we

would not implement significant changes to

habitat types. Maintaining the integrity of the

upland habitat found across the large geographic

Harbor Seal

USFWS photo
Chapter 4

4-86 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

span of the Refuge Complex and reducing the threats associated with

development should help to maintain the variety of habitat and foraging

conditions required by this diverse group of species. White-tailed deer

would continue to benefit directly from our efforts to maintain open fields

on Petit Manan Point Division; their browse is significantly improved by

this management.

Amphibians and Reptiles: We have recently initiated efforts to document

species diversity and abundance of reptiles and amphibians on the Refuge

Complex. In Maine, 17 species of reptiles and 17 species of amphibians

are documented; however, many of these species reach the northern

extreme of their range in southern Maine, and therefore are not found on

the mainland portions of the Refuge Complex. The habitat conditions and

distance from the mainland limit the diversity of species found on coastal

islands. We do not anticipate that any of our management actions on

islands would adversely affect species diversity, distribution, or overall

population viability. We also believe that this would be true for our mainland divisions. Our limited management of mainland grasslands is timed

to avoid late spring and summer breeding seasons. The mosaic of habitat

types found on the mainland divisions would continue to provide both the

aquatic and terrestrial habitats required by many of the amphibians found

in this region of Maine. Most importantly, Service acquisition and protection of coastal islands and mainland properties outlined in this alternative

would assure these areas continue to support a diverse group of reptiles

and amphibians over the long-term.

Invertebrates: Efforts to inventory invertebrate species on the Refuge

Complex have been recently initiated. A Refuge volunteer is currently

conducting dragonfly and damselfly surveys on Petit Manan Point Division (Hildreth 2001 and Hildreth 2002). To date, 33 species of Odonates

have been documented on the Refuge Complex, several of which are

considered rare or a special concern in Maine. Additional efforts have

focused on surveying Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths), Diptera (two

winged flies and true flies), and Cerambycidae (longhorned beetles) on

Petit Manan Point. We have recently initiated extensive spider inventories

of several mainland divisions and coastal islands (Jennings 2000, Jennings

2001, and Jennings 2002). To date, 178 species have been documented,

including several new records for the state of Maine, and several previously un-described species have been recorded. Service acquisition and

protection of coastal islands and mainland properties outlined in this

alternative would continue to support a diverse group of invertebrates.

Inter-tidal habitat surrounding the Refuge Complex would continue to

provide habitat to a diversity of aquatic invertebrates, which in turn

provide foraging opportunities for waterfowl and shorebirds.

Freshwater and Marine Fish: We have not documented freshwater fish

species in any of the freshwater wetlands found on the Refuge Complex.
Effects on Other Native Wildlife of Management Concern

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-87

Many of these were originally small emergent wetlands that were converted to larger bodies of open water through beaver dam construction and

more recently maintained by water control structures. It is unlikely that

these wetlands support any significant populations of fish. As such, we

predict there would be no impacts to freshwater fish from our management.

However, the marine waters adjacent to the Refuge Complex support a

tremendous diversity of marine invertebrates (e.g. lobster, blue mussels,

and sea urchins) and fish species (e.g. Atlantic salmon, herring, and

haddock). These highly productive waters of the Gulf of Maine are critical

to our seabird restoration efforts, as all of the seabirds, wading birds, and

waterfowl forage on either fish or invertebrates found in the marine

environment. We do not expect that our management under Alternative A

would directly impact marine species, except for our restrictions on

rockweed harvests, which would be beneficial as rockweed supports

aquatic invertebrates which are an important forage item for many waterfowl, shorebirds and seabirds.

Impacts from Proposed Wildlife Populations Management

Under Alternative A, we would continue our limited predator management

program targeted at mammalian (i.e. mink) and nocturnal avian predators

(i.e. black crowned night heron or great horned owl). The presence of one

of these predators on a seabird island can result in significant disruption of

the nesting colony, decreased productivity, decreased survival rates for

chicks and adults, or colony abandonment. In recent years, the numbers of

mammals removed from the seabird colonies has been relatively low, with

0-5 individuals removed from the six combined restoration projects. We

would not use live trapping and relocation of mammals, since it is not

permitted in the State due to concern of spreading rabies. If possible, nonlethal measures and relocation would be our primary means of dealing

with owls.

Under Alternative A, we would continue to respond quickly and efficiently

to the presence of these predators on the restoration islands. Mink have

been observed killing large number of terns and a single mink is believed

responsible for the drastic reduction in the NAS Jenny Island colony that

dropped from over 1,000 pairs of terns in 2000, to 59 pairs in 2001 (Hall

pers. comm.). Capture and removal efforts are specifically designed to

avoid capturing or injuring non-target species. Our predator control

efforts would result in increased productivity and survival rates for a

variety of seabird species. Since only selected individuals are removed,

we would not predict a significant regional or State decline in predator

populations.
Chapter 4

4-88 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Impacts from Proposed Land Acquisition and Protection

In addition to the 467.1 acres currently within the approved boundary, the

Service would acquire 87 nationally significant bald eagle, wading bird,

waterfowl, or colonial nesting seabird islands which lack permanent

protection by a conservation organization. These islands would continue

to provide critical nesting, foraging, and migratory habitat for a variety of

species of conservation concern. Service acquisition would remove all

threats associated with development of the islands. The diversity of habitats protected under this alternative would continue to support a broad

group of wildlife species including, but not limited to, Neotropical migrants, shorebirds, raptors, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians.

Impacts from Proposed Public Use and Access Management

With the exception of opening Petit Manan Point to white-tailed deer

hunting, and the expansion of waterfowl hunting opportunities to newly

acquired islands, the effects of public access on Refuge Complex wildlife

would remain similar to those outlined in Alternative A. Both deer and

waterfowl hunting seasons and limits are established by State and Federal

regulations which account for population trends and future expectations.

These ensure that regional and State populations remain viable and selfsustaining. Our hunt programs and the anticipated hunter use would not

significantly impact regional or State populations of deer or waterfowl.

Impacts from Proposed Habitat and Vegetation Management

The three Refuge Complex mainland divisions are ecologically diverse,

providing both food and shelter to a tremendous variety of resident and

migratory species. One of our primary objectives would be to continue to

protect and restore critical stopover points for Neotropical migrants,

waterfowl, and shorebirds during the spring and fall migrations along the

Maine coast.

We would focus management efforts on those habitats that would benefit

species identified as priorities under one of the various conservation plans.

As would be expected with any habitat action, some species of wildlife

would likely benefit, while others may be adversely effected by our

actions. Any adverse effects would likely be minimized by the short-term

habitat changes (1-2 years) we generally experience with our habitat

management actions. We would continue efforts to balance the needs of

the diverse array of wildlife species which use the Refuge Complex during

some portion of their life cycle. We would continue efforts to document

wildlife diversity and abundance on Refuge Complex islands and mainland divisions. We anticipate that all of the species discussed in section

Alternative A would benefit from permanent protection of these coastal

habitats.

Alternative B (Service’s

Preferred Alternative)
Effects on Other Native Wildlife of Management Concern

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-89

In addition to the management actions and consequences described in

Alternative A, we would manage the following cover types:

Mature Conifer: We would maintain mature conifer forest habitat on

Refuge Complex islands and mainland divisions to provide nesting habitat

for bald eagles and landbirds of high conservation priority within PIF Area

28 such as bay-breasted warbler, Cape May warbler, and spruce grouse.

Although conifers dominate a large percentage of Maine’s forests, most

are in commercial forests where the forest industry has favored shorter

harvest rotations, creating younger, even-aged forested stands. Our management actions would result in greater structural and age-class diversity

and more heterogenous stands than those under commercial harvesting

conditions. These older, mixed-aged forests typically have a greater

supply of downed and standing dead wood and more diverse vertical

structure and canopy gaps (Elliott 1999). While some Neotropical migrant

species may benefit from current commercial harvesting practices on

private lands (i.e. Wilson’s warbler and Lincoln’s sparrow), the PIF species mentioned above may be adversely affected. Working with our conservation partners, we would evaluate the most appropriate habitat management actions for landbirds of high conservation priority within PIF 28.

Northern Hardwood-mixed Forest: Under Alternative B, we would

maintain northern hardwood-mixed forest habitat to provide nesting

habitat for landbirds of high conservation priority within PIF Area 28 such

as black-throated blue warbler and Canada warbler. If warranted, our

management actions would focus on maintaining a balance of forest age

structures, including mid-successional and late-successional forest, and

providing structural diversity (shrubs and treefall) within the forest.

Managing the forest to provide structural and age-class diversity would

also provide a variety of foraging substrates to benefit migrating birds.

Early successional forest/scrub-shrub community: Under Alternative

B, we would maintain early successional forest/scrub-shrub habitat dominated by species such as alder and cherry approximately 2' to 10’ tall. Our

objective would be to provide nesting habitat for landbirds of high conservation priority within PIF Area 28 such as chestnut-sided warbler, American woodcock, and olive-sided flycatcher. In Maine, most land management practices strive to avoid the disturbances which typically create this

habitat. As a result, this habitat type and many landbirds associated with it

are in decline throughout PIF Area 28. Our management would contribute

to reversing these trends, but in all likelihood, due to the size of the Refuge Complex, the overall impact would be a negligible contribution to

regional or State populations.

In addition to nesting habitat, these scrub-shrub communities would

provide important foraging areas for migratory birds during spring and fall

migration. Foraging habitat is considered a vital component of the overall

habitat quality during the migration period.
Chapter 4

4-90 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Maritime saltmarsh and estuary: We would maintain the maritime

saltmarsh and estuary habitat on Sawyers Marsh and Gouldsboro Bay

divisions and Cross Island. These areas provide breeding habitat for

species of conservation concern such as Nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrow,

American black duck, and northern harrier. The saltmarshes and estuaries

would also provide important migratory stopover sites for a variety of

shorebirds and provide wintering habitat for American black ducks.

Vernal pools: We would continue to inventory and protect all vernal pool

habitat identified on Refuge Complex lands to maintain breeding habitat

for amphibian species of conservation concern, such as wood frogs and

spotted salamanders. Many of the amphibians of concern rely on vernal

pool habitat during all or part of their life cycle. Unfortunately, we have

not had the resources to complete our vernal pool surveys and document

the presence of amphibians in these areas during the breeding season.

None of our proposed management actions would adversely affect vernal

pool habitat and the species that depend on them.

Impacts from Wildlife Populations Management

Under Alternative B, we would expand our seabird restoration efforts to

six new islands. Although the consequences would be similar to those

outlined in Alternative A, the scope of the predator management effort

would be expanded to include the new projects. Using our current predator

removal levels as a baseline, we would anticipate that 5-10 predators/year

could be removed from the 12 restoration islands. However, it is important

to note that in some years, it may not be necessary to remove any mammalian predators from the islands. This level of predator management would

not have any effect on predator population levels in the coastal region of

Maine.

Impacts from Proposed Land Acquisition and Protection

In addition to the 467.1 acres currently within the approved boundary, the

Service would acquire all, or portions of, 151 nationally significant bald

eagle, wading bird, waterfowl, or colonial nesting seabird islands which

lack permanent protection by a conservation organization. As a result, the

islands would continue to provide valuable habitat for a variety of native

species. Service acquisition would remove all threats associated with

development of the islands and uncontrolled public access, maintaining

habitat quality and minimizing human disturbance.

Impacts from Proposed Public Use and Access Management

The actions and consequences of managing public access would be similar

to those outlined in Alternative B. The primary difference is that we would

open Petit Manan, Gouldboro Bay, and Sawyers Marsh divisions, Cross

and Bois Bubert Island to furbearer trapping. All trapping activities on the

Alternative C
Effects on Other Native Wildlife of Management Concern

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-91

Refuge Complex would be conducted according to State and Refuge

regulations. No trapping would be allowed on the mainland during the

waterfowl migration season (September through November) to protect the

large congregations of waterfowl building up reserves before they head

south. We would not anticipate any regional or State population declines

in furbearers resulting from opening the Refuge Complex to trapping.

State seasons and limits are based on population trends, including the

expected future trends, and the need to maintain viable and self-sustaining

populations within the estimated habitat capacity.

Impacts from Proposed Habitat and Vegetation Management

The habitat management objectives and techniques outlined under Alternatives A and B would be expanded to 12 new restoration projects (e.g. 18

total projects) under Alternative C. We have not yet identified which

islands would support the new restoration projects; therefore, it is not

possible to identify specific habitat management actions. In general, we

would strive to provide a diversity of habitats on each of the 12 islands in

an effort to accommodate the habitat requirements of this diverse group of

species. The majority of islands within the Refuge Complex would not be

actively managed. As such, we would not anticipate any adverse effects to

the resident or migratory species which use the islands.

Impacts from Proposed Wildlife Populations Management

Although the consequences would be similar to those outlined in Alternative B, the scope of the predator management effort would be expanded to

include the 12 new projects proposed under Alternative C. Using our

current predator removal levels as a baseline, we would anticipate that 10-

15 predators/year could be removed from the 18 restoration islands.

However, it is important to note that in some years it may not be necessary

to remove any mammalian predators from the islands. This level of predator management would not have any effect on State or regional predator

population levels.

Impacts from Proposed Land Acquisition and Protection

Under Alternative D, land acquisition would be limited to the 467.1 acres

currently unacquired within Petit Manan Refuge’s approved boundary.

This would leave the nationally significant bald eagle, wading bird,

waterfowl, and colonial nesting seabird islands without the permanent

protection afforded by conservation ownership. It is possible that the

anticipated impacts from development may be lessened through land

protection efforts by our conservation partners, but we cannot assume this

commitment. As such, some coastal islands would remain vulnerable to

development, and we would likely see gradual habitat loss for seabirds,

wading birds and waterfowl as these parcels are developed.

Alternative D
Chapter 4

4-92 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Impacts from Proposed Public Use and Access Management

Under Alternative D, all Refuge Complex islands would be closed to

public access year round and no hunting would be permitted anywhere on

the Refuge Complex. Based on the current light hunting pressure our lands

receive, we would not anticipate that closing the islands to hunting and

public access would have any effect on the variety or populations of

species which utilize the islands throughout the year. With regards to the

hunted species such as deer and waterfowl, we also would not anticipate

that closing the Refuge Complex to hunting would significantly increase

populations of these species. Natural predation rates, emigration to surrounding privately owned lands, and hunting on adjacent lands would be

expected to keep the populations within their natural range of variability.

Impacts from Proposed Habitat and Vegetation Management

Under Alternative D, we would utilize a custodial approach to wildlife and

habitat management, and minimize survey efforts and data collection.

Monitoring efforts would be limited to a few high priority seabird species.

We would eliminate the use of sheep grazing, herbicides, mowing, and

burning as habitat management tools. The laughing gull population on

Petit Manan Island would likely increase in number and nest site distribution as a result of increased vegetative growth and decreased gull control

measures.

There would be insufficient staff time and dollars to complete baseline

surveys, vegetation mapping, and research programs addressing critical

management issues. Without support of our volunteer program, we would

be unable to inventory and monitor invertebrates, reptiles, and amphibians. Efforts to document wildlife use of the coastal islands would be

limited to the six restoration islands, as little effort would be expended on

the other Refuge islands.

Impacts from Proposed Wildlife Populations Management

Under Alternative D, we would limit our efforts to non-lethal predator

management techniques. This change in management practices would

significantly reduce our ability to manage and protect seabird and wading

bird colonies along the coast of Maine. The number of mammalian predators on the seabird islands would likely increase. This increase may be self

limiting, however, as the number of seabirds available as prey would

likely be substantially reduced. Implementing Alternative D would significantly reduce our ability to contribute to the recovery efforts outlined in

the Roseate Tern Recovery Plan (USFWS 1998), USFWS Tern Plan

(USFWS 2002), and MDIFW Species Assessments. Predator numbers

may increase very slightly on the six intensively managed sites, but

overall, we do not predict our actions would result in a significant regional

or State population change for any predator species.
Effects on Wilderness Recommendations

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-93

All alternatives strive to protect native species and habitat diversity. No

significant changes to vertebrate or invertebrate population viability or

species distribution is predicted under any alternative, even after consideration of the public use, hunting, trapping and predator management proposed actions. Additional protection of native species would be afforded

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

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

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

Alternative D does not propose an expansion.

Appendix D describes the wilderness review process we undertook for this

CCP and how it relates to the management alternatives. In summary, we

determined that 13 islands in the Refuge Complex met the minimum

criteria for wilderness character, and from these, we identified 8 WSAs.

The following WSAs were further studied for their suitability to manage,

preserve long-term, and designate as wilderness:

■ Outer Heron Island WSA,

■ Outer White Island WSA,

■ Little Marshall WSA,

■ John’s Island WSA,

■ Bois Bubert Island WSA,

■ Inner Sand Island WSA,

■ Halifax Island WSA, and

■ Cross Island WSA Complex (includes Cross, Inner Double Head Shot,

Outer Double Head Shot, Mink, Scotch, and Old Man islands).

In our wilderness study, we evaluated whether we could maintain, over the

long-term, the quality of wilderness values and character, without compromising our ability to meet refuge purposes and the Refuge System mission. We considered the impacts from existing and planned resource and

public use programs and activities.

It is only in Alternatives B and C that we recommend the eight WSAs for

wilderness designation. Since Congress has reserved the authority to make

final decisions on wilderness designation, our recommendations are

preliminary administrative determinations that will receive further review

and possible modification by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service,

the Secretary of the Interior, the President of the United States, or Congress. However, the following analysis of impacts is based on the assumption that Congress would accept the recommendation and designate all

eight WSAs as wilderness.

Under Alternatives B and C, the eight WSAs would be designated wilderness and managed according to the provisions of the Wilderness Act and

Other Native Wildlife of

Management Concern -

Summary

Effects of

Wilderness

Recommendations
Chapter 4

4-94 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Service wilderness management regulations (50 CFR 35) and policy in the

Refuge Manual (6 RM 8). The islands would be managed to accomplish

refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission, and to preserve wilderness

character, natural values, and outstanding opportunities for solitude and

primitive recreation for the use and enjoyment of future generations. We

would adjust our refuge management strategies and techniques to comply

with wilderness stewardship principles and prevent degradation of wilderness character.

The use of motorized vehicles, motorized equipment, and mechanical

transport on WSA islands would be allowed only (1) for emergency

purposes or (2) when necessary to meet minimum requirements for the

administration of the area as wilderness and to accomplish refuge purposes. The islands, however, would continue to be accessible by motorboat. Proposed or new refuge management activities, including the need to

use motorized vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport for

administrative purposes, would be evaluated through a minimum requirements analysis and NEPA compliance to assess potential impacts and

identify mitigating measures to protect wilderness character.

Under Alternatives A and D, the eight WSAs would not be recommended

for wilderness designation. The islands would be managed to accomplish

their original refuge purposes only, in accordance with legal and policy

guidance for the Refuge System; the islands would no longer be labeled

WSAs and would no longer be specifically managed to maintain wilderness character. The provisions of the Wilderness Act and Service wilderness regulations and policy would not apply.

Impacts of Refuge Management Activities and Refuge Uses on Wilderness

Values

In the following discussion, we describe how actions proposed in the

alternatives for other Refuge Complex programs would affect the wilderness character of the eight WSAs.

None of the alternatives propose actions that would directly or indirectly

jeopardize the roadless character, size, naturalness, or outstanding ecological or scenic features of any of the eight WSAs. This is based on the fact

that no actions are proposed which would alter the physical character of

any of the islands. For example, no new or expanded administrative,

research, or recreational infrastructure is proposed. No changes in land use

or land ownership would occur. Further, no habitat manipulations are

proposed that would physically change the landscape. Under all alternatives, the islands identified as WSAs would continue to be physically

impacted primarily by natural forces.

There are no existing or planned refuge management or administrative

activities on any of the WSAs requiring the use of motorized or mechanized
Effects on Wilderness Recommendations

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-95

equipment. Under Alternatives B and C, any future proposals to use

motorized or mechanized equipment would need to be evaluated through a

“minimum requirements analysis.” This analysis would determine whether

the project or activity is necessary to meet minimum requirements for the

administration of the area as wilderness, or to accomplish refuge purposes

or the Refuge System mission. If the project is “necessary”, further evaluation would identify the minimum tool to accomplish the job. This analysis would not be required in Alternatives A or D.

Under Alternatives A, B, and C, the islands’ outstanding opportunities for

solitude and primitive recreation would be preserved and available consistent with the seasonal restrictions imposed on seabird and bald eagle

nesting islands. Under Alternatives B and C, the establishment of a limits

of acceptable change program to monitor camping use on Halifax and

Bois Bubert Islands would enhance our ability to manage these islands to

maintain the highest quality of solitude and primitive recreation. In addition, the implementation of a day use permit system for groups larger than

6 people under Alternative C would further enhance our ability to manage

the islands to maintain outstanding opportunities.

Alternative D would exclude public use and access year round on any

Refuge Complex island, including the WSAs. As such, opportunities for

solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation could not be experienced

by anyone. In other words, there would be no chance for anyone to have a

first-hand wilderness island encounter under Alternative D.

Wilderness designation would provide long-term legislative protection for

the islands’ wilderness character, natural values, and opportunities for

solitude and primitive recreation. Under Alternatives B and C, the eight

WSAs would be guaranteed this additional level of legislative protection

and commitment from the Service to manage the islands to maintain

wilderness character and values. The islands would be managed to accomplish refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission, and to preserve wilderness character, natural values, and outstanding opportunities for solitude

and primitive recreation for the use and enjoyment of future generations.

We would adjust our refuge management strategies and techniques to

comply with the provisions of the Wilderness Act, Service wilderness

management regulations (50 CFR 35) and policy (6 RM 8), to prevent

degradation of wilderness character, natural values, and outstanding

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation.

In summary, under Alternative B or C, all management actions on these

islands would be evaluated and modified as necessary to ensure no wilderness values are diminished or lost. In addition, if wilderness designation is

approved, we would develop detailed wilderness management plans to

sustain their wilderness values in perpetuity. Neither Alternatives A or D

affords this additional level of wilderness management and permanent

legislative protection.
Chapter 4

4-96 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Impacts to Other Refuge Programs and Refuge Uses

There are impacts, both short and long-term, directly associated with

recommending and designating wilderness areas which would occur only

under Alternatives B and C. Conversely, there are impacts with not recommending the WSAs, which we describe below.

During our public scoping meetings, some individuals were concerned

that formally designating wilderness would dramatically increase visitor

use and result in physical impacts to islands. They felt that once these

islands were identified on a map as such, their designation would attract a

substantial increase in visitation by those outdoor enthusiasts who are

drawn to the unique challenges wilderness areas offer. However, we do

not predict that a notable increase would occur for several reasons:

1. Several of the islands are either too remote, too small, and/or have no

landing sites so are not accessible;

2. For those that are accessible, several have seasonal access restrictions

due to nesting seabirds or bald eagles during the peak visitor use

season; and,

3. The assumption that if these WSAs are formally designated, visitation

will necessarily increase, is not statistically valid according to a review

of literature and wilderness studies.

Also during public scoping, some individuals asked whether existing,

compatible public uses occurring on WSAs would have to change or be

modified to adhere to wilderness management requirements. In particular,

there was concern whether priority public uses (i.e. hunting, fishing,

wildlife observation, nature photography, and environmental education

and interpretation) would be affected. During our wilderness review, we

evaluated each of these priority public uses occurring on WSAs and

determined none would have to be modified, regardless of the alternative.

All of these programs are currently being implemented in ways that do not

degrade wilderness character or values. The Wilderness Act prohibitions

on public use of motorized vehicles (e.g. ATVs) and equipment (e.g.

chainsaws), and mechanized transport (e.g. bicycles and game carriers)

would not affect any of the existing, compatible public uses. Motorized

public access is not currently allowed on Refuge Complex islands, and for

all practical purposes, motor vehicles and bicycles are not feasible or even

useful on the islands. For example, there is the difficulty in transporting

the vehicle or bicycle by boat to the islands. There is also the fact that

many of the islands have dense vegetation difficult to maneuver through

and trails exist on only the two larger islands. Finally, the small size of

most WSA islands precludes the need for these modes of transportation.

Bois Bubert is the only proposed wilderness island open to deer hunting

and the dense spruce-fir forest prevents the use of wheeled equipment.

Also, the relatively short distances to the shoreline from any point on the

island (< 1/2 mile) makes the use of this equipment unnecessary.
Effects on Wilderness Recommendations

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-97

There are no land uses or existing private rights that would affect or limit

our ability to manage the islands to maintain wilderness values and character. We have no plans, nor do we foresee a management need, for timber

harvest or livestock grazing. There are no mining claims, oil and gas

leases, or other subsurface claims or rights that we have found on the

WSAs, nor are we aware of any potential for these resources. Also, we

have not discovered any existing private property rights on refuge lands

within the boundaries of the WSAs.

We do not anticipate that wilderness designation would affect existing

aquaculture facilities or commercial fishing or lobstering activities in State

jurisdictional waters. As we described in Chapter 1 and Chapter 4, our

Maine Field Office would continue to recommend to the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers (ACOE) that a minimum 1/4 mile no-activity buffer be

implemented around Federal-owned islands. However, there is no guarantee that these recommendations would be incorporated into the final

permits. We do not know at this time whether the identification of WSAs,

or their designation as formal wilderness areas, would guarantee that the

ACOE would incorporate the Service buffer recommendation into permits.

Under Alternatives B and C, wilderness designation of the 8 WSAs would

directly suppport the CCP goals and objectives for protecting Federal trust

wildlife and the diversity of coastal habitats in several ways. Wilderness

designation establishes an additional refuge purpose of protecting wilderness

Purple sandpipers

USFWS photo
Chapter 4

4-98 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

character and values. It would strengthen the Refuge System mission and

the refuges’ purposes of protecting nesting seabirds and bald eagles and

island habitats essential to migrating birds such as raptors, water birds,

and shorebirds. It would further insure that the WSAs remain undeveloped

and retain their naturalness in perpetuity.

Designation of the eight WSAs would make a unique and significant

contribution to the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS).

Within the current NWPS, the only designated wilderness island on the

East Coast north of North Carolina includes North and South Monomoy

islands, off of southern Cape Cod. These two islands comprise the 2,600

acre Monomoy Wilderness Area. The wilderness area evolved from a

series of small sand-spit barrier islands which are constantly shifting,

eroding, and drifting. It is influenced by the warmer saline waters, moderate

tides, and moderate climates associated with the Gulf Stream. While some

trees less than 15 feet tall occur on the islands, the majority is dune,

saltmarsh, or freshwater marsh. The Monomoy Wilderness is noted for its

large common and roseate tern nesting colonies, its large and diverse

breeding waterfowl populations, and its shorebird migration. The wilderness area has a long history of settlement year round starting with Native

Americans (6,000 to 8,000 years ago). This was followed by European

settlements in the 18th century, culminating with a small town along the

southern end until the 1930’s.

The island WSAs recommended for wilderness designation on this Refuge

Complex are geologically, geographically, botanically, and culturally

distinct from the Monomoy Wilderness. The Petit Manan Refuge Complex

islands are formed on igneous and metamorphic bedrock, often perched

off the ocean surface creating up to 100 foot cliffs. The dramatic rocky

coastlines, over 4,617 off-shore islands, and rich cultural heritage create a

unique and incredibly diverse landscape incomparable in the United

States. The islands lie in the Gulf of Maine, where cold water and air

currents draw from the North Atlantic, and up to 50 foot tidal effects are

experienced. Most of the WSA islands are forested with mature spruce-fir

stands; the non-forested islands include plant communities more similar to

northern boreal or Arctic types.

The Petit Manan Refuge Complex WSA islands also contrast sharply to

Monomoy Wilderness in their history of use and management. Limited

human use and occupancy of these islands has occurred because of the

challenges with accessing and landing on the islands. Our understanding is

that early Native American use of the islands was seasonal, low impact,

and mostly confined to near-shore, larger islands such as Bois Bubert and

Cross islands. We know that only one of the WSA islands experienced

sheep grazing historically, but only limited seasonal occupancy by humans

would have occurred associated with the grazing. In short, these islands

have primarily been influenced only by the natural effects of climate and

weather.
Environmental Justice

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-99

Environmental

Justice

The Petit Manan Refuge Complex WSAs that support nesting seabirds

would also offer a unique opportunity within the NWPS to protect birds

such as Atlantic puffin, razorbills, black guillemots, and common eider,

which are on the southern geographic limit of their range and not found

anywhere else in the United States. Designation would also support

recovery of the Federal threatened bald eagle since active nesting occurs

on four of the islands. The Federal endangered roseate tern might also

benefit with the additional protection afforded islands as these terns use

them for foraging and roosting.

In accordance with Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to address

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,

Federal agencies must identify and address disproportionately high and

adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies,

and activities on minority and low-income populations. After presenting

the context of minority and low income populations in Maine coastal

counties, we address environmental justice as it relates to the four Refuge

Complex programs predicted to have the biggest impact on resources.

Maine's 1,286,670 residents are disproportionately white (96.9%) according to the U.S. 2000 Census (http://quickfacts.census.gov). This statistic

remains fairly constant within the four largest counties in coastal Maine as

depicted in Table 4-1 below. These are also the same four counties most

affected by current or proposed Refuge Complex management.

Table 4-1. Percent* of minority populations in four coastal counties in Maine.

Hancock Knox Washington York

Minority County County County County

Black or African American 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4%

American Indian and 0.4% 0.2% 4.4% 0.2%

Alaska Native

Asian 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.7%

Hispanic or Latino 0.6% 0.6% 0.8% 0.7%

*Percentages are the based on the percent of total county population

According to the 2000 national census, the percent of Maine residents

living below the poverty level is 10.9%; the national average is 12.4%. In

Table 4-2, we present the percent of residents below the poverty level in

the same four coastal counties.

Table 4-2. Percent of families and individual residents living below the poverty level in

four coastal counties in Maine.

Type of Hancock Knox Washington York

Resident County County County County

Family 7.0% 5.9% 14.2% 5.9%

Individual 10.2% 8.2% 19.0% 8.2%
Chapter 4

4-100 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Impacts from Proposed Land Acquisition and Protection

We are not aware of any adverse health or economic impacts to any

specific populations associated with our land acquisition program since its

inception. Since most of our proposed acquisition is off-shore islands, we

predict no future health risks and no significant changes in industry, taxes,

or revenues which might affect residents. As such, we do not expect that

Service land acquisition would disproportionately impact the health or the

environment of minority or low-income populations.

The two Passamaquoddy Tribes: Pleasant Point and Indian Township

Reservation, have both expressed interest in improving relations with the

Service and our staff. We are currently in discussions to determine how we

can cooperate in the identification and protection of cultural and natural

resources important to them. All alternatives would require that we develop a formal partnership agreement with these Tribes to further validate

a mutually-beneficial working relationship.

We expect that there are lands we propose to acquire which contain cultural and natural resources important to these and other Indian Tribes in

Maine. At this time, we do not know all lands which may be of special

interest to them and/or lands they would like to acquire as Tribal lands.

We have shared our land acquisition proposals for their review and comment. We would propose to resolve any conflicts locally or at the Regional

Office level, but it is possible that some decisions may be elevated to the

Secretary of Interior. None of the lands in Alternative B, the Service's

Preferred Alternative, have recorded pre-historic sites; although we acknowledge that the majority of these lands have not been surveyed. Alternatives B and C propose to increase our survey efforts at high probability

sites, particularly those at risk of erosion. None of our proposed acquisition lands lie near Tribal reservation lands.

Impacts from Proposed Public Use and Access Management

We do not predict that our proposals for public use and access management would disproportionately affect minority or low-income residents,

regardless of the alternative. None of the Refuge Complex visitor activities that we propose to eliminate or seasonally restrict on Refuge Complex

lands are ones we expect minority or low-income populations would

participate in greater proportion than other visitors.

Impacts from Proposed Vegetation and Habitat Management

As we described earlier in this chapter, use of herbicides and prescribed

fire are management tools we might employ which could have health

implications, and we predicted that neither would pose a risk to any

population. Both are used on a limited basis in a given year, if at all, and

occur under strict Service guidelines designed to minimize health and
Cumulative Impacts

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-101

safety risks. Refuge Complex visitors and local residents would be alerted

to these activities, and since there are few adjacent residents, risks are

negligible regardless of one's race or income status.

Impacts from Proposed Wildlife Populations Management

We do not predict impacts to any human populations from our proposed

wildlife populations program. This program consists primarily of activities

designed to restore seabirds to off-shore islands. These activities include

using non-lethal and lethal methods to control wildlife that prey on seabirds. Gulls, mink, great-horned owls, and night herons are examples.

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

of our management alternatives would cause disproportionately high and

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

populations in coastal Maine.

Cumulative impacts are those impacts on the physical, biological, and

human environment resulting from the incremental impact of the proposed

actions when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable

future actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but

collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.

This cumulative impacts assessment includes other agencies' or organizations' actions if they are inter-related and influence the same environment.

Thus, this analysis considers the interaction of activities at the Refuge

Complex with other actions occurring over a larger spatial and temporal

frame of reference. Potential cumulative impacts for the proposed alternatives are described below.

None of the proposed alternatives are expected to have significant cumulative adverse impacts on air quality in coastal Maine or elsewhere in New

England. Some short-term, local deterioration in air quality would be

expected from management-ignited prescribed burns and from Refuge

Complex visitors' automobile emissions. However, management-ignited

prescribed burns would only occur under the stipulations of the Fire EA

(2002) completed by the Refuge Complex. These stipulations are specifically designed to minimize air quality impacts. Further, while visitors

would primarily access the Refuges Complex by automobile, most would

drive less than 50 miles. Most of these visitors are already in the area on

vacation and seek out the Refuge Complex for a half-day trip. It is rarely

the primary destination for Maine coastal travelers. In other words, the

presence of the Refuge Complex should only be accountable for a very,

very small percentage of vehicle emissions generated in this area. Importantly, we predict no additional cumulative impacts to Class 1 air sheds

from our actions; the closest Class 1 area being Moosehorn Refuge

Minority and LowIncome Populations -

Summary

Cumulative Impacts

Air Quality
Chapter 4

4-102 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Wilderness Area, approximately 25 miles to the north in Baring, Maine.

We described the results of air quality monitoring studies in Moosehorn

Wilderness Area and Acadia National Park in detail in Chapter 3. In

summary, Refuge Complex-related activities contribute insignificantly to

poor air quality in coastal Maine, which is much more affected by power

plants and pulp mills from industrial centers and automobile emissions

from populated areas.

With our partners, we contribute to improving air quality through cooperative land protection and management of natural vegetation and wetlands.

Protecting land from development, which is happening at an increasing

rate in coastal Maine, and maintaining it in natural vegetation or as natural

wetlands, assures these areas will continue to filter out many air pollutants

harmful to humans and the environment.

The greatest past, present, and foreseeable future adverse impact on these

watershed resources in coastal Maine is from increasing residential and

commercial development. As development along the coast continues, the

threats to these Refuge Complex resources, namely coastal saltwater and

freshwater wetlands, will increase dramatically. In particular, deteriorating

water quality in coastal Maine has become a priority issue for State agencies and local communities. Chapter 3 describes many of these concerns.

A cooperative, watershed-level approach to protecting and managing these

resources offers the greatest opportunity to cumulatively improve conditions. We work closely with our Gulf of Maine Coastal Program Office,

who are active members of the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine

Environment. As described in Chapter 3, the mission of this international

council and its publication, The Gulf of Maine Times, is to maintain and

enhance environmental quality in the Gulf of Maine.

We can contribute to the Council's goals, and to improved watershed

conditions in three ways: Service acquisition of uplands and wetlands

threatened with development, cooperative land protection of important

habitat, and technical information exchange with landowners throughout

these watersheds.

Alternatives A, B, and C propose to increase Service land acquisition.

Alternative C proposes the most ambitious land acquisition strategy, with

a proposal to acquire from willing sellers all 151 nationally significant

islands not in permanent protection and 153.3 acres of mainland. Alternatives A and B propose acquisition of 30 and 87 islands respectively and

153.3 acres of mainland. Appendix A describes in detail the land acquisition proposal for Alternative B, the Service's Preferred Alternative.

We also work with an impressive array of other conservation partners who

are active in developing protection strategies for ecologically significant

lands in coastal Maine. Chapter 3 describes 12 partnerships with whom

the Service is engaged; all actively working to promote land and resource

Soils, Hydrology,

Wetlands, and Water

Quality
Cumulative Impacts

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-103

protection and/or cooperative land management near the Refuges Complex.

Each of the alternatives proposes various levels of participation in ongoing, watershed-based land protection partnerships. All alternatives propose

to increase private-public lands partnerships, primarily to share technical

information on things like restoration and habitat management techniques.

When combined with actions by other Federal, State, and local organizations working in coastal Maine, we expect all of the alternatives to have a

positive cumulative effect on soils, hydrology, wetlands, and water quality

within their respective watersheds.

All alternatives are intended to maintain or improve biological resources

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

Ecosystem. The combination of our management actions with other

organizations' actions could result in significant, beneficial cumulative

effects by: (1) increasing protection and management for Federal and

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

wetlands habitats that are regionally declining; and (3) reducing invasive,

exotic plants and animals.

Our staff, the MDIFW, GOMP, National Audubon Society, Maine

Audubon Society, and private individuals now cooperate in monitoring

and/or managing all of the seabird nesting islands in coastal Maine. The

alternatives propose varying levels of increased protection and management for those nesting sites which occur on the Refuge Complex. As we

described earlier in Chapter 4, all of the nesting sites are vital to the

continued presence of several nesting seabird species; any loss or degradation of these nesting areas would have a significant adverse cumulative

effect on the overall Atlantic coast population. Loss of any island's nesting

population would further isolate the remaining nesting areas making them

more susceptible to catastrophic loss from such threats as hurricanes, oil

spills, and/or disease.

Alternatives A, B, and C propose to manage at least 70 acres of open field

and blueberry barrens, 226 acres of successional hardwood forest, and 219

acres of freshwater wetlands on Petit Manan Point Division to maintain

the impressive diversity of landbirds, waterbirds, waterfowl, and shorebirds documented here. Alternatives A, B and C propose to establish

interpretive, educational and outreach programs on Petit Manan Point to

promote conservation and habitat restoration throughout coastal Maine.

While the land we affect is very small compared to the entire Maine coast,

our objective is to impress other landowners to take positive action as

well.

Biological Resources
Chapter 4

4-104 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

We expect none of the alternatives to have significant adverse cumulative

impact on cultural resources in Maine. Beneficial impacts would occur at

various levels, depending on the alternative, because of proposed environmental education and interpretation programs, and increased field surveys

to identify and protect any discovered sites. In Alternatives B and C we

would identify high probability sites to survey more intensely and focus

on those threatened by erosion from wind and tides. We would also continue to maintain the historic lighthouses and associated structures on the

Refuge Complex to the best of our ability given funding levels.

Finally, we would also develop a formal partnership with the Passamaquoddy

Tribes to establish a mutually beneficial relationship, and improving our

knowledge of Tribal history. Acadia National Park is further along in

developing a partnership with the Passamaquoddy Tribes. Their objective

is to improve their interpretive and education programs on Tribal history

and promote a respect for cultural resources in coastal Maine. These

programs could potentially reach hundreds of thousands of visitors a year.

Educating these Maine coastal visitors on the need to protect cultural

resources will benefit our programs as well.

We expect none of the alternatives to have a significant adverse cumulative impact on the economy of coastal Maine. Although Federal land

acquisition reduces property tax revenue, affected towns are compensated

with Refuge Revenue Sharing payments, and also should realize a reduction in cost of community services as we described earlier in Chapter 4. In

addition, the proposed acquisitions make up only a small portion of any

town. We expect increased visitation to the Refuge Complex to bring

additional revenues to local communities through increased tourism, but

we do not predict this will be a significant increase in overall revenue in

any area.

Alternatives A, B and C would maintain the two Maine Island Trail camping sites on Refuge Complex islands. This would ensure that no new gaps

in the trail are created and allows this unique boating experience to continue. All other islands would remain open to public day use and access

consistent with the established seabird and bald eagle nesting seasonal

closures. As new islands are acquired by the Service, these seasonal

nesting closures would be imposed and no new camping sites would be

allowed. This could have implications to current users of islands proposed

for Service acquisition. It is also true that we do not know whether current

island owners actually allow public uses that we would restrict. However,

from a cumulative impact, the most islands to be acquired by the Service

is 151 under Alternative C. These islands are scattered from the New

Hampshire border to Cutler, Maine and represent only 4% of the 4,617

islands along the Maine coast. No one area of the coast would be disproportionately impacted.

Cultural Resources

Human Resources
Relationship Between Short-term Uses of the Human

Environment and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-105

Alternatives A, B and C would cumulatively increase priority public use

programs related to interpretation, environmental education, wildlife

observation and photography in downeast Maine. Few public areas outside

of Acadia National Park offer these programs, typically free to the public,

and with accessible facilities. This would supplement the private recreational and educational programs offered along the coast and contribute to

a diverse mix of opportunities.

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

the human environment and maintaining long-term productivity of the

environment. By long-term we mean that the impact would extend beyond

the 15-year planning horizon of this draft CCP/EA. Short-term means less

than 15 years.

All of the alternatives strive to maintain or enhance the long-term productivity and sustainability of natural resources on the Refuge Complex. To

varying degrees, the alternatives propose actions that promote watershedor ecosystem-wide partnerships geared to identifying and protecting

important coastal habitats. The alternatives strive to protect our Federal

trust species and the habitats they depend on, as evidenced by the seasonal

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

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

have resulted in important regional increases in these species. Outreach

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

All alternatives propose stepped-up outreach and enforcement to eliminate

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

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

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

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

staffing or funding levels to insure these uses can be eliminated.

The dedication of certain areas to maintain arterial roads, trails, visitor

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

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

not considered significant given the land base. Camping in designated

areas would be allowed to continue in Alternatives A, B and C on two

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

we would establish thresholds of change which may trigger eliminating

this use. Sheep grazing would also be allowed to continue in Alternatives

A, B,and C, but similar to camping, we would monitor closely and develop specific operating prescriptions in a special use permit.

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

maintaining or enhancing the long-term productivity of the environment

of coastal Maine.

Relationship Between

Short-term Uses of

the Human

Environment and

Enhancement of

Long-term

Productivity
Chapter 4

4-106 Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Unavoidable adverse effects are those actions which could cause significant harm to the human environment that cannot be avoided, even with

mitigation measures. We considered property tax losses to towns, increased visitation and its effects, and prescribed fire as the principle

activities that could have unavoidable effects. Actual losses in property tax

revenue to towns was described in this chapter in the section: Effects on

the Local and Regional Economy. While the impacts to individual coastal

towns varies, none of the alternatives would contribute to a significant

cumulative loss in any one town. Alternatives A, B, and C predict an

increase in visitation at increasing levels, respectively. Enhanced services

and facilities for Refuge Complex visitors will draw more people to the

area, in particular we are predicting more groups with increased environmental education and interpretive programs. Even under a carefully

designed program, increased visitation would result in higher levels of

disturbance to wildlife, although most of these would occur in localized

areas. We intend to manage our visitor use programs to minimize these

effects. The impacts from prescribed burning used in vegetation treatments would impact visual quality for a short time each year (< 7 days),

but will be implemented under conditions that comply with State Clean

Air Act and Federal EPA standards. As such, the effects would not be

significant.

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

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

significant unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts.

Irreversible commitments of resources are those which cannot be reversed,

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

contributes to a species' extinction. Once extinct, it can never be replaced.

In comparison, irretrievable commitments of resources are those which

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

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

commitment is the maintenance of forest and shrubland as open field and

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

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

expedited with plantings.

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

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

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

Unavoidable

Adverse Effects

Potential Irreversible

and Irretrievable

Commitments of

Resources
Potential Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-107

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

Complex expansion at increasing levels, respectively. Once these lands

become part of the Refuge Complex, it is unlikely they would ever revert

back to private ownership.

The commitment of resources to maintain the freshwater impoundments,

grasslands and open fields (Alternatives, A, B, and C only) is very small

compared to the benefits derived from the increased biodiversity. On the

mainland, these wetlands, grasslands, and fields provide nesting, foraging,

and migrating habitat for many migratory bird species of conservation

concern. They also benefit Refuge Complex visitors by providing wildlife

observation opportunities. On the islands, maintaining grasslands and

fields is vitally important to providing high quality seabird nesting habitat.

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

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

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

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

However, keeping in mind that the Refuge Complex's primary purpose is

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

during the critical seabird nesting season is warranted. In addition, with

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

provide recreational opportunities at times when the Refuge Complex

islands are closed.

Black guillemots

USFWS photo
4-108 

Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Table 4-3 Summary of the effects of management alternatives on Refuge Complex resources 

Refuge 

Complex 

Resources 

Alternative A 

Current Management 

Alternative B 

Service’s Preferred Alternative C 

Physical Resources

Water Quality and Soils 

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

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

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

Service 467 acrconservminimapermanquality Increaspermancurrent they wopublic uwould bthe interestoragreatly Some suse on Point trNo violState Cstandar
Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-109

 Table 4-3 Summary of the effects of management alternatives on Refuge Complex resources (cont’d) 

Refuge 

Complex 

Resources 

Alternative A 

Current Management 

Alternative B 

Service’s Preferred Alternative C 

Physical Resources (cont’d)

Air Quality Potential for contributing 

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

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

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

No prescrioccur; no ifrom this sNo violatioClean Air Aincluding iairshed ovWilderness 
4-110 

Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Table 4-3 Summary of the effects of management alternatives on Refuge Complex resources (cont’d) 

Refuge 

Complex 

Resources 

Alternative A 

Current Management 

Alternative B 

Service’s Preferred Alternative C 

Socioeconomic Resources 

Local and Regional Economies 

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

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

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

No islachange contribregionashort-tproperOver thwould outputs seabird opportof hunt
Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-111

Table 4-3 Summary of the effects of management alternatives on Refuge Complex resources (cont’d) 

Refuge 

Complex 

Resources 

Alternative A 

Current Management 

Alternative B 

Service’s Preferred Alternative C 

Socioeconomic Resources (cont’d) 

Public Access, Educational and Recreational Opportunities 

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

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

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

MajoovedrampubedurecrsincclosyeaprogoffeHunoppelim
4-112 

Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

 Table 4-3 Summary of the effects of management alternatives on Refuge Complex resources (cont’d) 

Refuge 

Complex 

Resources 

Alternative A 

Current Management 

Alternative B 

Service’s Preferred Alternative C A

Socioeconomic Resources (cont’d)

Cultural resources 

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

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

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

Provides for additiprotectiogreatest human dislands saccess aImproved PassamaWabanadevelopm

Wilderness No wilderness proposed Recommends 13 islands in 

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

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

No wilde

Biological Resources 

Vegetation and Habitats 

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

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

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

Dramatic managemand habisuccessioGrasslansuccessichange tforest haterm on mrestoration managemchan

ge t
Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-113

Table 4-3 Summary of the effects of management alternatives on Refuge Complex resources (cont’d) 

Refuge 

Complex 

Resources 

Alternative A 

Current Management 

Alternative B 

Service’s Preferred Alternative C 

Biological Resources (cont’d) 

 2) maintain up to 70 acres of 

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

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

Threatened and Endangered Species 

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

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

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

Maintaiprotecthistoric roseate current howevepredatoadverseroseate 
4-114 

Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Table 4-3 Summary of the effects of management alternatives on Refuge Complex resources (cont’d) 

Refuge 

Complex 

Resources 

Alternative A 

Current Management 

Alternative B 

Service’s Preferred Alternative C 

Biological Resources (cont’d) 

 Protect an additional active 

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

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

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

No new new res

Seabirds, Wading birds, and Waterfowl 

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

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

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

Affords nesting quality reduced seabird  Lack ocontrol, proposewould lnesting 
Draft CCP/EIS - April, 2004 4-115

Table 4-3 Summary of the effects of management alternatives on Refuge Complex resources (cont’d) 

Refuge 

Complex 

Resources 

Alternative A 

Current Management 

Alternative B 

Service’s Preferred Alternative C 

Biological Resources (cont’d) 

Other Native Wildlife of Concern 

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

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

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

Same aexcept: No loss to huntas thesoccur Provideadditionprotectrefuge (467 ac