Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement

              Lake Umbagog
National Wildlife Refuge
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement
November 2008
U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceThis goose, designed by J.N. “Ding��� Darling, has become the symbol of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Harper’s Meadow
©2008 Mary Konchar
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the 95-million acre National Wildlife Refuge System comprised of more than 545 national wildlife refuges and thousands of waterfowl production areas. It also operates 65 national fish hatcheries and 78 ecological services field stations. The agency enforces Federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, administers the Endangered Species Act, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Assistance Program which distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state wildlife agencies.
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long term guidance for management decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above ­current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.Lake Umbagog
National Wildlife Refuge
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement
“We envision Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge as an essential link in the network of conservation lands in the Northern Forests. We will showcase science-based, adaptive management in a working forest landscape and provide an outstanding center for research. We will achieve this through strong partnerships with State agencies, conservation organizations, land managers, and neighboring communities.
“Our management will perpetuate the diversity and integrity of upland spruce-fir and northern hardwood forests, boreal and riverine wetlands, and lake habitats for the continued health of native fish and wildlife populations. These habitats will provide an important regional breeding area for migratory land birds, waterfowl, and other species of regional significance, such as the common loon and bald eagle.
“Visitors of all ages will feel welcome to enjoy the full complement of priority wildlife-dependent public uses. We will foster their knowledge of and support for conserving northern forest habitats through exceptional outreach and visitor programs. We want all our visitors to return home filled with enthusiasm for promoting and practicing resource stewardship in their own communities.
“We hope residents of neighboring communities in Maine and New Hampshire will value the refuge for enhancing their quality of life. Within the National Wildlife Refuge System, the refuge will be treasured for conserving Federal trust resources and providing inspirational outdoor experiences for present and future generations of Americans.”
Refuge Vision Statement
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
iiii
Abstract
Abstract
Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement
Abstract
Administrative
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
Marvin Moriarty, Regional Director, Region 5
Nancy McGarigal, Planning Team Leader
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 5
300 Westgate Center Drive
Hadley, MA 01035
(413) 253–8562; northeastplanning@fws.gov
This Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (CCP/EIS) for the Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge fully compares three management alternatives. Its 16 appendixes provide additional information supporting our analysis. Appendix O includes our responses to public comments on the Draft CCP/EIS.
This “no action” alternative, required by regulations under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, would simply extend the way we now manage the refuge over the next 15 years. It also provides a baseline for comparing the two “action” alternatives. We would continue to protect the refuge from external threats, monitor its key resources, and conduct baseline inventories to improve our knowledge of its ecosystem. We would continue our public use programs for wildlife observation, hunting and fishing, allow snowmobiling and camping at their present capacities in designated areas, and offer limited environmental education and interpretation. We would continue to acquire from willing sellers 7,482 acres within the approved refuge boundary, adding to its current 21,650 acres.
We recommend this alternative for approval. Its highest priority is to protect the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of Umbagog Lake and its associated rivers and streams. Its second priority is to conserve the upland mixed forest and sustain those native species dependent on the forest. Management would focus on enhancing habitats for selected refuge focal species, including species of regional conservation concern whose habitat needs generally represent the needs of many other federal trust resources. Alternative B would improve the quality of our wildlife-dependent recreation programs and result in several new public uses being offered. We would also strengthen our partnerships with state and local entities offering similar recreational programs in the area. Another partnership would focus on developing a Land Management Research Demonstration (LMRD) program for applying the best available science in management decisions that affect wildlife resources in the Northern Forest. This alternative includes expanding the refuge as part of a network of conservation lands by acquiring 47,807 acres from willing sellers: 56 percent in fee simple and 44 percent in easements. These proposed additions to the refuge are important for conserving refuge focal species and other federal trust resources. Alternative B also proposes a new refuge headquarters and visitor contact facility. Refuge staffing and budgets would increase commensurately.
This alternative focuses on sustaining natural ecological communities, rather than selected species. It would result in passively or actively manipulating vegetation to create or hasten the development of natural communities, landscape patterns and processes. Similar to alternative B, it would improve wildlife-dependent recreation, strengthen our partnerships, develop the LMRD program, and add a new headquarters and visitor contact facility. It would expand the refuge by 74,414 acres, which we would purchase in fee simple from willing sellers. Our target would be to create contiguous blocks of hydrologically connected conservation habitat greater than 25,000 acres: the size we estimate as the minimum necessary to facilitate the natural progression of ecological processes in the Northern Forest conservation network.
Type of action:Lead agency:Responsible official:For further information:Alternative A.— Current Management:Alternative B.— Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred):Alternative C.— Management to Create Natural Landscape Composition, Patterns and Processes: Table of Contents
Table of Contents
v
Table of Contents
Refuge Vision Statement . i
Chapter 1 Purpose of and Need for Action
Introduction . . 1-1
The Purpose of and Need for Action . 1-2
Regional Context and Project Analysis Area . 1-3
The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning . . . . . 1-6
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project . . 1-9
Refuge Establishment Purposes and its Land Acquisition History . . 1-16
Refuge Administration . 1-19
Refuge Operational Plans (“Step-down” Plans) . 1-19
Refuge Vision Statement . 1-19
Refuge Goals­. . . 1-20
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process . . 1-25
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process & NEPA Compliance . 1-26
Issues, Concerns and Opportunities . 1-27
Other Issues . 1-35
Issues Outside the Scope of this Analysis or Not Completely
Within the Jurisdiction of the Service . . 1-35
Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative
Introduction . . 2-1
Formulating Alternatives . . 2-1
Actions Common to All of the Alternatives . 2-3
Actions Common to Alternatives B and C Only . . 2-15
Alternatives or Actions Considered but Eliminated from Further Study . . 2-21
Alternative A. Current Management . 2-24
Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species
(Service-preferred Alternative) . . 2-39
Alternative C. Management to Create Natural Landscape Composition,
Patterns and Processes . 2-86
Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative . . 2-104
Chapter 3 Affected Environment
Introduction . . 3-1
The Upper Androscoggin River Watershed and the Northern Forest . . 3-1
The Landscape Setting . . 3-1
The Historical Picture . . 3-1
Current Conditions . . 3-6
Regional and Local Economic Setting . 3-10
The Refuge and its Resources . . 3-13
Refuge Administration . 3-13
Refuge Natural Resources . 3-19
Soils . . 3-20
The Mixed Forest Matrix and Habitat Types . . 3-22
Upland Habitats . 3-31
Fish and Wildlife . . 3-34
Cultural and Historic Resources . . 3-42
Priority Public Uses . . 3-43Table of Contents
Table of Contents
vi
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Introduction . . 4-1
Effects on Socioeconomic Resources . 4-3
Effects on Air Quality . . 4-11
Effects on Soils . 4-16
Effects on Hydrology and Water Quality . . 4-22
Effects on Open Water and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and
Wetland Habitats and Species . 4-26
Effects on Floodplain, Lake Shore, and Riparian Habitats and Species . . 4-38
Effects on Upland Forest Matrix Habitats and Species . . 4-47
Effects on Public Use and Access . 4-54
Effects on Cultural Resources . 4-57
Cumulative Impacts . . 4-58
Relationship between Short-term Uses of the Human Environment and
Enhancement of Long-term Productivity . 4-65
Unavoidable Adverse Effects . . 4-65
Potential Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources . 4-65
Environmental Justice . 4-66
Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination with Others
Background . 5-1
Planning Updates, Issues Workbook, and other Newsletters and Publications . 5-1
Public Scoping Meetings — Meeting Our Refuge Neighbors at Open Houses . 5-1
Updating Various Constituents on Our Progress . . 5-1
Meeting with State Partners and Other Conservation Experts . 5-2
Briefing Elected Officials and Others . . 5-6
Public Release of Draft CCP/EIS . . 5-6
Updating Various Constituents on Draft CCP/EIS . 5-7
Chapter 6 List of Preparers
Members of the Core Planning Team . 6-1
Assistance from Other Service Personnel . . 6-3
Assistance from Others . 6-4
Glossary
Glossary . . Glos-1
Acronyms . . Glos-22
Bibliography
Bibliography . Bibl-1
List of Figures
Figure 1.1. The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process . 1-26
Figure 2.1A The mixed forest matrix landscaping setting . . 2-62
Figure 2.1B The three embedded upland forest types within the
mixed forest matrix . . 2-62
Figure 3.1 Umbagog Lake daily headpond elevations 1992–2002 . . 3-21
Figure 4.1. U.S. Census blocks surrounding the refuge . 4-68Table of Contents
Table of Contents vii
List of Tables
Table 1.1. Land acquisition history of the Lake Umbagog refuge (*as of
January 1, 2008) . . 1-17
Table 2.1. Potential number of refuge focal species breeding pairs/singing
males supported in refuge’s upland forest habitat types under
alternative B management . 2-71
Table 2.2. Highlights of respective alternative’s actions as they relate to goals
and significant issues . 2-104
Table 3.1. Local and regional population estimates and characteristics . 3-11
Table 3.2. Refuge staffing and budgets, 1998–2005 . 3-14
Table 3.3. Local purchases by Lake Umbagog refuge staff FY 1999–2005 . 3-15
Table 3.4. Refuge revenue sharing payments to towns, 2001-2007 . . 3-16
Table 3.5. Camp lot lease information and revenues generated, 1996–2007 . . 3-18
Table 3.6. Soils mapped on the Lake Umbagog refuge (USDA 2004) . . 3-22
Table 3.7. Habitat types and acres in the approved Lake Umbagog
Refuge boundary . 3-23
Table 3.8. Maine and New Hampshire State-listed species that occur or
likely occur on the refuge . . 3-35
Table 4.1. Impact contexts for Service actions under CCP at
Lake Umbagog Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-2
Table 4.2. Estimated annual refuge visitation by visitor activity for alternative A . . 4-4
Table 4.3. Economic impacts of all refuge management activities for
alternative A (2005, $,000) . . 4-5
Table 4.4. Estimated annual refuge visitation by visitor activity for alternative B. . .4-6
Table 4.5. Change in economic impacts under Alternative B compared to
Alternative A (2005, $,000). . 4-8
Table 4.6. Estimated annual refuge visitation by visitor activity for alternative C. . . 4-9
Table 4.7. Change in economic impact under alternative C compared to
alternative A (2005, $,000). . 4-11
Table 4.8. Annual refuge visits by alternative . . 4-13
Table 4.9. Manageable forest habitat on the Lake Umbagog Refuge in next
15 years under the CCP . . 4-20
Table 4.10. Wetland acquisition by alternative (acres) . . 4-31
Table 4.11. Floodplain, lakeshore, and riparian habitat acquisition proposed
by alternative . 4-41
Table 4.12. Upland mixed forest matrix habitat acquisition proposed by
alternative . 4-49
Table 4.13. Socially disadvantaged community indicators for areas
surrounding the refuge . 4-69
Table 4.14- Summary of the effects of management alternatives on
Lake Umbagog refuge resources . . 4-70
List of Maps
Map 1-1 Upper Androscoggin River Watershed and Conserved Lands . . 1-4
Map 1-2 Project Analysis Area . . 1-5
Map 1-3 Current Refuge Ownership Status . 1-18
Map 2-1 Floating Island National Natural Landmark–Proposed Expansion . . . . 2-16
Map 2-2 Woodcock Focus Areas . 2-17Table of Contents
Table of Contents
viii
List of Maps (cont’d)
Map 2-3 Expansion Proposal Considered But Not Fully Developed . 2-23
Map 2-4 Alternative A – Habitat Type Predictions . 2-25
Map 2-5 Alternative A – Designated Routes of Travel and Public Use . . . . . . . 2-27
Map 2-6 Alternative B – Proposed Refuge Expansion . . 2-40
Map 2-7 Alternative B – Habitat Type Predictions . 2-41
Map 2-8 Alternative B – Proposed Designated Routes of Travel and
Public Use . 2-43
Map 2-9 Alternative B – Proposed Designated Snowmobile Trails . . 2-44
Map 2-10 Deer Wintering Areas . . 2-65
Map 2-11 Alternative C – Proposed Refuge Expansion . . 2-88
Map 2-12 Alternative C – Habitat Type Predictions . 2-89
Map 2-13 Alternative C – Proposed Designated Routes of Travel and
Public Use . 2-90
Map 2-14 Alternative C – Proposed Designated Snowmobile Trails . . 2-91
Map 3-1 Existing Refuge Habitat Types . . 3-25
Map 3-2 Designated Routes of Travel and Public Use . . 3-45Purpose of and Need for Action
Umbagog Lake
Carolina Ferro Vasconcelos/USFWS
Chapter 1Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action
1-1
The Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge (NWR; refuge) consists of 21,650 acres in Coos County, New Hampshire, and Oxford County, Maine. Established in 1992 with the first land purchase, its purposes are to provide long-term protection for unique wetlands, threatened or endangered species and migratory birds of conservation concern, and sustain regionally significant concentrations of wildlife. Approximately half of the refuge consists of forested and non-forested wetland habitats and water, and half of forested upland habitat typical of the Northern Forest ecosystem.
This final plan combines two documents required by federal law:
a comprehensive conservation plan, required by the National Wildlife Refuge ■■System Administration Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-57; 111 Stat. 1253).
an environmental impact statement, required by the National Environmental ■■Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; 83 Stat. 852), as amended.
Chapter 1 explains the purpose and need for preparing a Final CCP/EIS, and sets the stage for 5 subsequent chapters and 16 appendixes. It
defines our planning analysis area,■■
presents the mission, policies and mandates affecting the development of the ■■plan,
identifies other conservation plans we used as references,■■
lists the purposes for which the refuge was established and its land acquisition ■■history,
clarifies the vision and goals that drive refuge management,■■
describes our planning process and its compliance with NEPA regulations, and■■
identifies public issues or concerns that surfaced during plan development. ■■
Chapter 2, “Description of the Alternatives,” presents three management alternatives with different strategies for meeting refuge goals and objectives and addressing public issues, for example, continuing our present management of the refuge unchanged, or managing it according to our Service-preferred alternative. It fully evaluates three reasonable alternatives for achieving the goals and addressing the public issues below. Following public review of this Final CCP/EIS, our Regional Director’s decision on the management alternatives will be documented in a Record of Decision indicating which management alternative is being adopted as the CCP that will guide refuge management decisions over the next 15 years. We will also use the final plan to promote understanding and support for refuge management among state agencies in New Hampshire and Maine, our conservation partners, tribal governments, local communities and the public.
Chapter 3, “Description of the Affected Environment,” describes the physical, biological, and human environment of the refuge.
Introduction
IntroductionChapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action
1-2
Chapter 4, “Environmental Consequences,” evaluates the environmental consequences of implementing each of the three management alternatives. That is, it predicts their foreseeable benefits and consequences for the socioeconomic, physical, cultural, and biological environments described in chapter 3.
Chapter 5, “List of Preparers,” credits this plan’s contributors.
Chapter 6, “Consultation and Coordination with Others,” summarizes how we involved the public and our partners in the planning process. Their involvement is vital for the future management of the refuge.
Sixteen appendixes provide additional supporting documentation and references.
We propose to develop the CCP for the refuge that, in the Service’s best professional judgment, best achieves the purposes, goals, and vision of the refuge and contributes to the National Wildlife Refuge System’s mission, adheres to Service’s policies and other mandates, addresses identified issues of significance, and incorporates sound principles of fish and wildlife science.
NEPA regulations require us to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives, including our preferred action and no action. The no-action alternative can mean either (1) not managing the refuge, or (2) not changing its present management. In this plan, alternative A is the latter.
The purpose of a CCP is to provide each refuge with strategic management direction for the next 15 years, by
stating clearly the desired future conditions for refuge habitat, wildlife, visitor ■■services, staffing, and facilities;
explaining clearly to state agencies, refuge neighbors, visitors, and partners ■■the reasons for management actions;
ensuring that refuge management conforms to the policies and goals of the ■■Refuge System and legal mandates;
ensuring that present and future public uses are compatible with the purposes ■■of the refuge;
providing long‑term continuity and direction in refuge management; and, ■■
justifying budget requests for staffing, operating and maintenance funds.■■
There are several reasons we identify a need for this CCP. First, the Refuge Improvement Act requires us to write a CCP for every national wildlife refuge to help fulfill the mission of the Refuge System.
Second, the Lake Umbagog Refuge lacks a master plan to accomplish the actions above, yet its environment has changed dramatically over the past decade. For example, the economy and land ownership patterns in local communities have changed; pressures for public access have continued to grow; and new ecosystem and species conservation plans bearing directly on refuge management have been developed.
The Purpose of and Need for Action
The Purpose of and Need for the Proposed ActionChapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action
1-3
Third, we need to evaluate locations for a proposed new refuge headquarters and visitor contact facility.
Fourth, we have developed strong partnerships vital for our continued success, and we must convey our vision for the refuge to those partners and the public.
Finally, we need a CCP to guide us in conserving land to protect federal trust species in the Northern Forest. The refuge has acquired most of its land in the last 5 years.
All of those reasons clearly underscore the need for the strategic direction a CCP provides. To help us resolve management issues and public concerns, our planning process incorporates input from the natural resource agencies of New Hampshire and Maine, affected communities, individuals and organizations, our partners and the public.
The regional context for our analysis is the Upper Androscoggin River watershed (map 1-1). Our analysis uses the definition of the watershed developed by the Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC; Publicover and Weihrauch 2003). The AMC defines a larger watershed than does the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The AMC-defined watershed includes an area below Shelburne Dam draining south of the Mahoosuc Range and Elephant Mountain that shares many of the “north country” characteristics north of the Mahoosuc Range (Publicover and Weihrauch 2003).
The watershed boundary on map 1-1 defines the socioeconomic and ecological context for evaluating the relationship of the refuge to regional resources of concern. The land ownership, land use or management patterns in that political, social, and ecological environment may affect our management of the refuge. Of particular note, map 1-1 also depicts the regional land conservation network in and around the watershed. More than a dozen partners cooperate in that network, of which the refuge lands form an integral part.
The watershed covers more than 2,300 square miles in northern New Hampshire and western Maine. At its northernmost point, it drains the south slopes of the mountains along the Canadian border. It includes all areas that drain into the Androscoggin River upstream of its confluence with the Web River in Dixfield, Maine. The Androscoggin River starts at the outlet of Umbagog Lake.
Forest covers most of the rugged mountains, steep slopes and narrow valleys in the watershed landscape. Human population densities there are relatively low; many of the northern reaches lack permanent populations. The AMC “Ecological Atlas of the Upper Androscoggin Watershed” (Publicover and Weihrauch 2003) provides more details on the land use history, land ownership patterns, natural history, habitat types, and conservation challenges in the watershed.
In cooperation with our state partners, we also developed a project analysis area within the watershed: an area of influence immediately around the refuge (map 1-2). Management or other activities in our project analysis area could directly affect refuge resources or influence our ability to achieve its purposes, vision, or goals. We did not distinguish among the types of private land ownership or land development within that boundary. It includes the incorporated towns of Errol, New Hampshire, and Magalloway and Upton, Maine; the unincorporated towns of Wentworth Location and Cambridge, New Hampshire; private land trusts, undeveloped lands owned by timber companies, and conservation lands owned by state or federal agencies.
Regional Context and Project Analysis Area
Regional Context and Project AnalysisChapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action
1-4
Regional Context and Project Analysis Map 1-1Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action
1-5
Map 1-2 Regional Context and Project AnalysisChapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action
The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning
1-6
The Service is part of the Department of the Interior. Our mission is “Working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.” Congress entrusts to the Service the conservation and protection of these national natural resources: migratory birds and fish, federal-listed endangered or threatened species, inter-jurisdictional fish, wetlands, certain marine mammals, and national wildlife refuges. We also enforce federal wildlife laws and international treaties on importing and exporting wildlife, assist states with their fish and wildlife programs, and help other countries develop conservation programs.
The Service manual, available online at http://www.fws.gov/policy/manuals, contains the standing and continuing directives on fulfilling our responsibilities. The 600 series of the Service manual addresses land use management, and sections 601-609 specifically address management of national wildlife refuges.
We publish special directives that affect the rights of citizens or the authorities of other agencies separately in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR); the Service manual does not duplicate them (see 50 CFR 1–99 online at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/index.html).
The Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands and waters set aside specifically for the conservation of wildlife and the protection of ecosystems. More than 545 national wildlife refuges encompass more than 95 million acres of lands and waters in all 50 states and several island territories. Each year, more than 40 million visitors hunt, fish, observe and photograph wildlife, or participate in environmental education and interpretation on refuges.
In 1997, President William Jefferson Clinton signed into law the Refuge Improvement Act. That act establishes a unifying mission for the Refuge System.
“The mission of the System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” —Refuge Improvement Act; Public Law 105-57
It also establishes a new process for determining the compatibility of public uses on refuges, and requires us to prepare a CCP for each refuge. The act states that the Refuge System must focus on wildlife conservation. It also states that the mission of the Refuge System, coupled with the purposes for which each refuge was established, will provide the principal management direction on that refuge.
The Refuge System Manual contains policy governing the operation and management of the Refuge System that the Service Manual does not cover, including technical information on implementing refuge polices and guidelines on enforcing laws. You can review that manual at refuge headquarters. These are a few noteworthy policies instrumental in developing this CCP.
Policy on Refuge System Planning
This policy (602 FW 1, 2, and 3) establishes the requirements and guidance for Refuge System planning, including CCPs and step-down management plans. It states that we will manage all refuges in accordance with an approved CCP that, when implemented, will help
The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding PlanningThe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its MissionThe National Wildlife Refuge System and its Mission and PoliciesThe Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action
1-7
achieve refuge purposes;■■
fulfill the Refuge System mission;■■
maintain and, where appropriate, restore the ecological ■■integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System;
achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation ■■System and the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; and,
conform to other mandates.■■
That planning policy provides guidance, systematic direction, and minimum requirements for developing all CCPs, and provides a systematic decision-making process that fulfills those requirements. Among them, we are to review any existing special designation areas or the potential for such designations (e.g., wilderness and wild and scenic rivers); and, incorporate a summary of those reviews into each CCP (602 FW 3).
Policy on Maintaining Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health
This policy provides guidance on maintaining or restoring the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System, including the protection of a broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources in refuge ecosystems. It provides refuge managers with a process for evaluating the best management direction to prevent the additional degradation of environmental conditions and restore lost or severely degraded environmental components. It also provides guidelines for dealing with external threats to the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of a refuge and its ecosystem (601 FW 3).
Policy on Appropriateness of Refuge Uses
Federal law and Service policy provide the direction and planning framework for protecting the Refuge System from inappropriate, incompatible or harmful human activities and ensuring that visitors can enjoy its lands and waters. This policy (603 FW 1) provides a national framework for determining appropriate refuge uses in an effort to prevent or eliminate those uses that should not occur in the Refuge System. It describes the initial decision process the refuge manager follows when first considering whether or not to allow a proposed use on a refuge. An appropriate use must meet at least one of the following four conditions:
The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the Refuge 1) Improvement Act.
The use contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the Refuge System 2) mission, or goals or objectives described in a refuge management plan approved after October 9, 1997, the date the Refuge Improvement Act was signed into law.
The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under State regulations.3)
The use has been found to be appropriate after concluding a specified findings 4) process using 10 criteria.
This policy can be viewed on-line at http://www.fws.gov/policy/library/06-5645.pdf.
Marvin Moriarty/USFWS
Umbagog Lake in winterChapter 1. Purpose 1-8 of and Need for Action
Policy on Compatibility
This policy (603 FW 2) complements the appropriateness policy. The refuge manager must first find a use is appropriate before undertaking a compatibility review of that use. If the proposed use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will not allow the use and will not prepare a compatibility determination.
This policy and its regulations, including a description of the process and requirements for conducting compatibility reviews, can be viewed on-line at http://policy.fws.gov/library/00fr62483.pdf . Our summary follows.
The Refuge Improvement Act and its regulations require an affirmative ■■finding by the refuge manager on the compatibility of a public use before we allow it on a national wildlife refuge.
A compatible use is one “that will not materially interfere with or detract from ■■the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge.”
The act defines six wildlife-dependent uses that are to receive our enhanced ■■consideration on refuges: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
The refuge manager may authorize those priority uses on a refuge when they ■■are compatible and consistent with public safety.
When the refuge manager publishes a compatibility determination, it will ■■stipulate the required maximum reevaluation dates: 15 years for wildlife-dependent recreational uses; or 10 years for other uses.
However, the refuge manager may reevaluate the compatibility of any use ■■at any time: for example, sooner than its mandatory date, or even before we complete the CCP process, if new information reveals unacceptable impacts or incompatibility with refuge purposes (602 FW 2.11, 2.12).
The refuge manager may allow or deny any use, even one that is compatible, ■■based on other considerations such as public safety, policy, or available funding.
Although Service and Refuge System policy and the purposes of each refuge provide the foundation for its management, other federal laws, executive orders, treaties, interstate compacts, and regulations on conserving and protecting natural and cultural resources also affect how we manage refuges. A centralized library of Service-wide policies, executive orders, director’s orders, and the “Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service” can be viewed at http://www.fws.gov/policy/.
Federal laws also require the Service to identify and preserve its important historic structures, archaeological sites, and artifacts. NEPA mandates our consideration of cultural resources in planning federal actions. The Refuge Improvement Act requires that the CCP for each refuge identify its archaeological and cultural values.
The National Historic Preservation Act (Pub. L. 102–575; 16 U.S.C. 470) requires federal agencies to locate and protect historic resources—archaeological sites and historic structures eligible for listing or listed in the National Register of Historic Places and museum property—on their land or on land affected by their activities. It also requires agencies to establish a program for those activities and carry them out in consultation with State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs).
Other Mandates
The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding PlanningChapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action
1-9
The NHPA also charges federal agencies with locating, evaluating, and nominating sites on their land to the National Register of Historic Places. We maintain an inventory of known archaeological sites and historic structures in the Northeast Regional Office and file copies of the sites at each refuge. Our regional historic preservation officer in Hadley, Massachusetts, oversees our compliance with the NHPA and our consultations with state SHPOs. We must also comply with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (Pub. L. 96–95, 16 U.S.C. 470aa-mm). It requires that we protect our archaeological sites from vandalism or looting and issue permits for site excavation.
The Service also owns and cares for museum properties. The most common are archaeological collections, art, zoological and botanical collections, historical photographs, and historic objects. Each refuge maintains an inventory of its museum property. Our museum property coordinator in Hadley, Massachusetts, guides the refuges in caring for that property, and helps us comply with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001, et seq.) and federal regulations governing federal archaeological collections. Our program ensures that Service collections will continue to be available to the public for learning and research.
Chapter 4, “Environmental Consequences,” evaluates this plan’s compliance with the cultural and historic acts cited above, as well as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Endangered Species Act (ESA). We designed this Final CCP/EIS to fulfill our NEPA compliance.
The Service developed this report (USFWS 2002) in consultation with the leaders of ongoing bird conservation initiatives and partnerships such as Partners In Flight (PIF), the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) and Joint Ventures, the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (NAWCP), and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. The report fulfills the mandate of the 1988 amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. §§2901 et seq.) requiring the Secretary of the Interior, through the Service, to “identify species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory non-game birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.”
The 2002 report contains 45 lists that identify bird species of conservation concern at national, regional, and landscape scales. It includes a principal national list, seven regional lists corresponding to the seven regional administrative units of the Service, and species lists for each of the 37 Bird Conservation Regions designated by the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) in the United States. NABCI defined those Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) as ecologically based units in a framework for planning, implementing, and evaluating bird conservation. The refuge lies in the Atlantic Northern Forest Bird Conservation Region (BCR 14; see additional discussion below).
Our agency’s overarching goal in developing that report is to stimulate federal, state, and private agencies to coordinate, develop, and implement integrated approaches for conserving and managing the birds deemed most in need of conservation. The report is available online at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports/BCC02/BCC02.pdf.
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the ProjectBirds of Conservation Concern 2002 Report
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project1-10
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action
The Atlantic Coast Joint Venture partnership created this blueprint in response to the NABCI challenge of building on existing partnerships to plan, implement, and evaluate cooperative bird conservation across North America. You may read the entire text of this document, “Blueprint for the Design and Delivery of Bird Conservation in the Atlantic Northern Forest,” online at http://www.acjv.org/documents/bcr14_blueprint.pdf. It presents a strategic design of the key components that this BCR initiative will need to implement to maintain healthy populations of birds native to the Atlantic Northern Forest BCR, more commonly referred to as BCR 14. Specifically, it establishes a series of goals for moving BCR 14 toward a vision of sustained bird populations; it presents the biological foundation for its recommendation; and, it lays out a framework for implementing and evaluating them (Dettmers 2004).
The BCR 14 blueprint identifies 53 bird species designated “highest” or “high” conservation priority in the region, and 15 habitat types important for supporting one or more of those priority bird species during at least one of their life stages. Those habitats either need critical conservation attention, or are crucial in long-term planning to conserve continentally and regionally important bird populations. Of the 53 highest and high-priority birds, 21 breed on the refuge, and several others migrate through. The refuge offers them 9 of the 15 priority habitat types. We considered each of those species and habitats in writing appendix B, “Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern,” and in developing our habitat goals, objectives, and strategies. Some examples of priority species identified in the plan for different habitat types include:
Mixed forest: Canada warbler, wood thrush (highest); black-throated blue ■■warbler (high); blackburnian warbler, black-throated green warbler (moderate)
Coniferous forest: Bay-breasted warbler, Canada warbler (highest), boreal ■■chickadee (high), black-backed woodpecker (moderate)
Deciduous and Mixed Forest: Canada warbler, wood thrush (highest); black-■■throated blue warbler (high); ovenbird (moderate)
Shrub-scrub: Canada warbler, American woodcock (highest), rusty blackbird ■■(high), palm warbler, yellow-bellied flycatcher (moderate)
Forested wetland: American black duck (highest), common goldeneye, rusty ■■blackbird (high); wood duck (moderate)
Palustrine emergent marsh: American black duck (highest); northern harrrier, ■■Wilson’s snipe, American bittern (moderate)
Freshwater lakes, rivers, and streams: American black duck (highest), ■■common goldeneye (high); wood duck, bald eagle (moderate)
In 1990, PIF began as a voluntary, international coalition of government agencies, conservation organizations, academic institutions, private industries, and citizens dedicated to reversing the population declines of bird species and “keeping common birds common.” The foundation of its long-term strategy is a series of scientifically based bird conservation plans using physiographic areas as planning units.
The goal of each PIF plan is to ensure the long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native birds, primarily non-game birds. The plan for each physiographic area ranks bird species according to their conservation priority, describes their desired habitat conditions, develops biological objectives, and recommends conservation measures. The priority ranking factors in habitat loss, population trends, and the vulnerability of a species and its habitats to regional and local threats.
North American Bird Conservation Initiative: Blueprint for the Design and Delivery of Bird Conservation in the Atlantic Northern Forest- Bird Conservation Region 14 (2005)Partners In Flight Bird Conservation Plans1-11
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action
Physiographic Area 28—Eastern Spruce-Hardwood Forest (Draft June 2000).—Our project area lies in Physiographic Area 28, The Eastern Spruce-Hardwood Forest. The Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan for Physiographic Area 28- Eastern Spruce-Hardwood Forest, represents a bird conservation plan for the subsection of Bird Conservation Region 14 in which the Refuge is located.
In developing our habitat goals and objectives, we referred to its draft plan, now online at http://www.blm.gov/wildlife/plan/pl_28_10.pdf.
The plan (Rosenberg and Hodgman 2000) includes objectives for the following habitat types and associated species of conservation concern on the refuge.
Northern hardwood and mixed forest: Canada and black-throated blue ■■warbler, wood thrush, and veery;
Mature conifer (spruce-fir) forest: bay-breasted, Cape May and blackburnian ■■warbler, spruce grouse, and red crossbill;
Boreal peatland: spruce grouse and olive-sided flycatcher; ■■
Early successional forest/edge: American woodcock and olive-sided flycatcher; ■■and,
Freshwater wetland/rivers/lakes: American black duck■■
Originally written in 1986, the NAWMP Plan describes a 15-year strategy for the United States, Canada, and Mexico to restore and sustain waterfowl populations by protecting, restoring and enhancing habitat. The plan committee, including representatives from Canada, the United States, and Mexico, has modified the 1986 plan twice to account for biological, sociological, and economic changes that influenced the status of waterfowl and the conduct of cooperative habitat conservation. The most recent modification in 2004 updates the latest needs, priorities, and strategies for the next 15 years, and guides partners in strengthening the biological foundation of North American waterfowl conservation and stakeholder confidence in the direction of the plan. You may review it online at http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/NAWMP/images/implementationframework.pdf
To convey goals, priorities, and strategies more effectively, that 2004 modification comprises two separate documents: Strategic Guidance and Implementation Framework, the former for agency administrators and policy makers who set the direction and priorities for conservation. The latter includes supporting technical information for use by biologists and land managers.
The plans are implemented at the regional level in 14 habitat Joint Ventures and 3 species Joint Ventures: Arctic Goose, Black Duck, and Sea Duck. Our project area lies in the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, which includes all the Atlantic Flyway states from Maine to Florida and Puerto Rico. The part of the refuge in Maine lies in the “Inland Wetlands” focus area; the part in New Hampshire lies in the “Lake Umbagog Focus Area,” an indication of the importance of the refuge. You may view a map of focus areas for New Hampshire and Maine online at http://www.acjv.org/.
The waterfowl goal for the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture is “Protect and manage priority wetland habitats for migration, wintering, and production of waterfowl, with special consideration to black ducks, and to benefit other wildlife in the joint venture area.”
The Black Duck Joint Venture plan also relates to our project. Black ducks use the refuge during their breeding season and fall migration. The Black Duck Joint
North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP; update 2004)North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (Version 1, 2002)
© Mark Wilson
American black duck
in flight1-12
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action
Venture Plan, Final Draft Strategic Plan (USFWS/CWS 1993) resides online at http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bdjv/.We used both plans in developing the objectives and strategies in goals 1 and 2.
This plan (Kushlan et al. 2002) is an independent partnership among individuals and institutions interested in or responsible for conserving water birds and their habitats. The plan is just one element of a multi-faceted conservation program. The primary goal of the plan is to ensure that the distribution, diversity, and abundance of populations and habitats of breeding, migratory, and non-breeding water birds are sustained or restored throughout the lands and waters of North America, Central America, and the Caribbean. It provides a framework for conserving and managing colonially nesting water-dependent birds. In addition, it will facilitate continent-wide planning and monitoring, national, state, and provincial conservation, regional coordination, and local habitat protection and management.
A Mid-Atlantic/New England/Maritimes Regional Working Group has been established. It is a regional partnership of organizations and individuals working to facilitate waterbird conservation in this region. Their overarching goal is to help local resource managers within the region protect waterbirds and their habitats. This will be accomplished by facilitating the development and distribution of information on the status and conservation needs of waterbirds and habitats, and by building partnerships between wildlife managers, scientists, conservationists and supporters.
You can access the continental plan online at http://www.nawcp.org/pubs/ContinentalPlan.cfm. You can access information on Mid-Atlantic/New England/Maritimes Regional planning online at http://www.fws.gov/birds/waterbirds/MANEM/. We used information from both those sources in developing our objectives and strategies for goals 1 and 2.
Concerns about shorebirds led to the creation of the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan in 2000. Brown, et al. published a second edition in May 2001. Developed under a partnership of individuals and organizations throughout the United States, the plan develops conservation goals for each U.S. region, identifies important habitat conservation and research needs, and proposes education and outreach programs to increase public awareness of shorebirds and of threats to them.
In the Northeast, the North Atlantic Regional Shorebird Plan was also drafted to step down the goals of the continental plan to smaller scales to identify priority species and habitat and species goals, and prioritize implementation projects. You may read the U.S. Shorebird Plan online at http://www.fws.gov/shorebirdplan/
USShorebird/downloads/USShorebirdPlan2Ed.pdf The North Atlantic Regional Shorebird Plan appears online at http://www.fws.gov/shorebirdplan/RegionalShorebird/RegionalPlans.htm. We used both plans in developing our objectives and strategies for goals 1 and 2.
This plan describes actions necessary in the 24 states it covers to ensure the survival and recovery of bald eagles. Its primary objective is to reestablish self-sustaining populations of bald eagles throughout the Northern States Region. Its initial goal is 1,200 occupied breeding areas with an average annual productivity of at least 1.0 young per occupied nest in at least 16 states. Specific recovery tasks fall into these four general categories.
Determine current population and habitat status;1)
Determine minimum population and habitat needed to achieve recovery;2)
Protect, enhance, and increase bald eagle populations and habitats; and3)
U.S. Shorebird (2001, 2nd ed.) and North Atlantic Regional Shorebird PlansNorthern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (USFWS 1983)1-13
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action
Establish and implement a coordination system for information and 4) communication.
Due to its success under the Endangered Species Act, the Service delisted the bald eagle. It continues to be protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. In any case, there will remain a significant need to permanently protect bald eagle habitat and ensure the species’ future success. We used this recovery plan as we developed our management goals, objectives, and land acquisition proposal.
Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (PARC) was created in response to the increasing, well-documented national declines in amphibian and reptile populations. PARC members come from state and federal agencies, conservation organizations, museums, the pet trade industry, nature centers, zoos, the power industry, universities, herpetological organizations, research laboratories, forest industries and environmental consultants. Its five geographic regions—Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Southwest and Northwest—focus on national and regional herpetofaunal conservation challenges. Regional working groups allow for region-specific communication.
The National State Agency Herpetological Conservation Report (NHCR), a summary report sponsored by PARC, provides a general overview of each state wildlife agency’s support for reptile and amphibian conservation and research through September 2004. Each state report was compiled in cooperation with its agency’s lead biologist on herpetofaunal conservation. The purpose is to facilitate communication among state agencies and partner organizations throughout the PARC network to identify and address regional and national herpetological priorities.
PARC intends to expand the scope of the NHCR to include other states, provinces, and territories. It will also include other state agencies that are supporting herpetofaunal conservation and research, such as transportation departments, park departments, and forest agencies. The states of New Hampshire and Maine have completed reports included in the NHCR online at http://www.parcplace.org/documents/PARCNationalStates2004.pdf. The next NHCR will also integrate the list of species of conservation concern into each state’s comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy (see below). We used the latest draft NHCR plan in developing objectives and strategies for goals 1, 2, and 3, and in developing appendix B, “Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern.”
In 2004, in recognition of the need to address regional and range-wide threats to brook trout, a group of public and private entities formed the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture (EBTJV) with a mission to halt the decline of brook trout and restore fishable populations. Its unique partnership has grown and now includes state and federal agencies, regional and local governments, businesses, conservation organizations, academia, scientific societies, and private citizens. It is the nation’s first pilot project under the National Fish and Wildlife Initiative, and is a geographically focused, locally driven, and scientifically-based effort to protect, restore and enhance aquatic habitat throughout the range of the Eastern brook trout. The EBTJV has been modeled after the joint ventures aligned with the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.
The EBTJV is developing a draft Conservation Strategy that identifies current threats to Eastern brook trout, proposes a general strategy to deal with these threats, and outlines potential corrective measures. One important technical report is “Distribution, Status and Perturbations to Brook Trout within the Eastern United States.” It will categorize a variety of threats to brook trout and their habitat and helps to identify restoration and protection priorities. This and other products will then be used to formulate operational plans to begin
Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, National State Agency Herpetological Conservation Report (Draft 2004)Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture1-14
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action
implementation of high priority programs. More information is available online at http://www.fishhabitat.org.
Native brook trout occur in our project area and we have identified them as a species of conservation concern in appendix B. Sub-watersheds in our project area represent most of the intact brook trout habitat remaining outside of Maine. Maine is considered the last true stronghold for brook trout in the eastern U.S. We will continue to consult with Service and state fisheries biologists involved in the development of the EBTJV Conservation Strategy to assist us in developing objectives and strategies related to brook trout and other associated aquatic resources.
In 2002, Congress created the State Wildlife Grant Program (SWG), and appropriated $80 million for state grants. The purpose of the program is to help state and tribal fish and wildlife agencies conserve fish and wildlife species of greatest conservation need. The funds appropriated under the program are allocated to states according to a formula that takes into account their size and population.
To be eligible for additional federal grants and satisfy the requirements for participating in the SWG program, each state and U.S. territory must develop a statewide “Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy” and submit it to the National Advisory Acceptance Team by October 1, 2005. Each plan must address eight required elements, identify and focus on “species of greatest conservation need,” yet address the “full array of wildlife” and wildlife-related issues, and “keep common species common.”
The New Hampshire and Maine plans (NHFG 2005; MDIFW 2005) resulted from that charge. The goal of each plan is to create a vision for conserving that state’s wildlife and stimulate other states, federal agencies, and conservation partners to think strategically about their individual and coordinated roles in prioritizing conservation.
In addressing the eight elements below, those two plans supplement and validate the information on species and habitat and their distribution in our analysis area, and help us identify conservation threats and management strategies for species and habitats of conservation concern in the CCP. The expertise that convened to compile those plans and their partner and public involvement further enhance their benefits for us. We used them in developing objectives and strategies for goals 1, 2, and 3, and in developing appendix B, “Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern.” These are the eight elements.
Information on the distribution and abundance of species of wildlife, including 1) low and declining populations, as the state fish and wildlife agency deems appropriate, that are indicative of the diversity and health of the state’s wildlife
New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, Wildlife Action Plan (WAP 2005), and State of Maine Comprehensive Conservation Strategy
Brook trout
Duane Raver/USFWS1-15
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action
Descriptions of locations and relative condition of key habitats and community 2) types essential to the conservation of species identified in element 1
Descriptions of problems that may adversely affect species identified in 3) element 1 or their habitats, and priority research and survey efforts needed to identify factors that may assist in restoration and improved conservation of these species and habitats
Descriptions of conservation actions necessary to conserve the identified 4) species and habitats and priorities for implementing such actions
Plans proposed for monitoring species identified in element 1 and their 5) habitats, for monitoring the effectiveness of the conservation actions proposed in element 4, and for adapting those conservation actions to respond appropriately to new information or changing conditions
Description of procedures to review the plan at intervals not to exceed 10 years6)
Plans for coordinating, to the extent feasible, the development, 7) implementation, review, and revision of the plan strategy with federal, state, and local agencies and Native American tribes that manage significant areas of land and water within the state, or administer programs that significantly affect the conservation of identified species and habitats
Plans for involving the public in the development and implementation of plan 8) strategies
We also consulted the plans and resources below as we refined our management objectives and strategies, especially those with a local context.
Finding Common Ground: Conserving the Northern Forest. 1994. Northern ■■Forest Lands Council, Concord, New Hampshire; copy available at refuge headquarters.
The Northern Forest Lands Study of New England and New York: A report ■■to the Congress of the United States on the recent changes in landownership and land use in the Northern Forest of Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont. Governors’ Task Force on Northern Forest Lands. 1990. USDA Forest Service, Rutland, Vermont; copy available at refuge headquarters.
10th Anniversary Forum, Final Report: Recommendations for the ■■Conservation of the Northern Forest. 2005. Northern Forest Lands Council, Concord, New Hampshire; copy available at refuge headquarters
Maine State Forest and Conserved Lands plans for Dodge Point, Richardson ■■Lakes, and Days Academy and Sugar Island (Public Reserved Lands) and Kineo and Farm Island (State Park Lands); copy available at refuge headquarters.
New Hampshire State-wide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan ■■(SCORP); available online at
http://www.nh.gov/oep/programs/SCORP/documents/scorpsummaryreport.pdf
Maine State-wide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan; available online at ■■http://www.state.me.us/doc/parks/programs/SCORP/index.html
Connecticut Lakes Headwaters Plan; available online at
■■http://www.nhstateparks.org/ParksPages/CLHWF/CLHWFinterminPlan.html
New Hampshire Forest Resources Plan; available online at■■
http://www.ceinfo.unh.edu/Pubs/ForPubs/NHFRP01.pdf
White Mountain National Forest Plan; available online at
■■http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain/projects/forest_plan/
Other Regional Information SourcesChapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action
Refuge Establishment Purposes and its Land Acquisition History
1-16
Society for the Protection of NH Forests, New Hampshire’s Changing ■■Landscape, 2005; available online at
http://www.spnhf.org/research/research-projects.asp#nhcl
New England Forestry Foundation Plan; available online at
■■http://www.newenglandforestry.org/forestry/rfmp.asp
Northern Forest Canoe Trail plan; available online at
■■http://www.northernforestcanoetrail.org/
Appalachian Trail, National Park Service, Strategic Plan and other resources; ■■available online at
http://data2.itc.nps.gov/parks/appa/ppdocuments/05Strategic%20Plan.doc
GORP Adventure Travel and Outdoor Recreation with information ■■Appalachian trail; available online at
http://gorp.away.com/gorp/resource/us_trail/guid_app.htm
Rangeley Lakes Heritage Trust; available online at
■■http://www.rlht.org/index.shtml
The Service established the refuge with its first land purchase in 1992 for the following purposes and under the following authorities.
“… the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions” (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, 16 U.S.C. 3901(b));
“… for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” (Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715d);
“… for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources…” (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956; 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)); and,
Refuge Establishment Purposes and its Land Acquisition History
One source used
for regional informationRefuge Establishment Purposes and its Land Acquisition History
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action
1-17
“… for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude” (Fish and Wildlife Act; 16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1)) .”
Map 1-3 depicts the current refuge boundary. Table 1.1 summarizes the land acquisition history of the refuge.
Table 1.1. Land acquisition history of the Lake Umbagog refuge (*as of January 1, 2008)
Calendar Year
Acres*
Funding Source#
1992
128
LWCF
1993
41
LWCF
1995
5,986
LWCF, MBCF
1996
203
LWCF
1998
214
MBCF
1999
2,488
LWCF, MBCF
2000
1,309
LWCF, MBCF
2001
8,847
LWCF, MBCF
2002
191
LWCF
2003
1
LWCF
2004
8
LWCF
2005
1,097
LWCF, MBCF
2006
406
MBCF
2007
727
MBCF
Total All
21,650
Table Notes
* The Service owns all acreage in full fee simple, except for a conservation easement on 6.01 acres. Acreage is approximate, as numbers are rounded up and it derives from these three sources of varying accuracy: (1) land deeds (2) surveys or (3) GIS digitizing. For ease of presentation, the maps throughout this document do not show Service ownership of the lake bottom, or the road easements outside the approved refuge boundary. However, all summaries of refuge acres, including table 1.1, include that ownership.
#LWCF—Land and Water Conservation Fund.—funding sources include revenues from the sale of surplus federal real property, motorboat fuel taxes, fees for recreation on federal lands, and receipts from mineral leases on the outer continental shelf.
#MBCF—Migratory Bird Conservation Fund.—the funding source is receipts from the sale of Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps.Chapter 1. Purpose 1-18 of and Need for Action
Refuge Establishment Purposes and its Land Acquisition History Map 1-3Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action
1-19
The refuge now has four full-time permanent staff positions: refuge manager, deputy refuge manager, refuge wildlife biologist, and maintenance worker. In addition, the refuge shares a full-time law enforcement officer with the Silvio O. Conte Refuge. Seasonal staff positions will vary between one and ten each year. The Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) program adds an adult crew leader and up to five youths each summer.
Refuge planning policy lists more than 25 step-down management plans that generally are required on refuges. Those plans contain specific strategies and implementation schedules for achieving refuge goals and objectives. Some plans require annual revisions; others require revision every 5 to 10 years. Some require additional NEPA analysis, public involvement, and compatibility determinations before we can implement them.
The status of step-down plans on the refuge follows. This document incorporates by reference those that are up to date. Chapter 2 provides more information about the additional step-down plans needed and their schedule for completion.
The following plan is up to date with current management.
Hunt Plan, 2007; including amended EA and FONSI (USFWS, 2007)■■
We are preparing and incorporating this step-down plan into this CCP.
Land Protection Plan (LPP)■■
We will need to complete additional plans after the adoption of the final CCP. The precise list of plans may vary depending on the alternative selected for the final CCP.
Very early in the planning process, our team developed this vision statement to provide a guiding philosophy and sense of purpose in the CCP.
“We envision Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge as an essential link in the network of conservation lands in the Northern Forests. We will showcase science-based, adaptive management in a working forest landscape and provide an outstanding center for research. We will achieve this through strong partnerships with State agencies, conservation organizations, land managers, and neighboring communities.
“Our management will perpetuate the diversity and integrity of upland spruce-fir and northern hardwood forests, boreal and riverine wetlands, and lake habitats for the continued health of native fish and wildlife populations. These habitats will provide an important regional breeding area for migratory land birds, waterfowl, and other species of regional significance, such as the common loon and bald eagle.
“Visitors of all ages will feel welcome to enjoy the full complement of priority wildlife-dependent public uses. We will foster their knowledge of and support for conserving northern forest habitats through exceptional outreach and visitor programs. We want all our visitors to return home filled with enthusiasm for promoting and practicing resource stewardship in their own communities.
“We hope residents of neighboring communities in Maine and New Hampshire will value the refuge for enhancing their quality of life. Within the National Wildlife Refuge System, the refuge will be treasured for conserving Federal
Refuge AdministrationRefuge Operational Plans (“Step-down” Plans)Refuge Vision Statement
Refuge AdministrationChapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action
Refuge Goals
1-20
trust resources and providing inspirational outdoor experiences for present and future generations of Americans.”
We developed these goals after considering that vision, the purposes of the refuge, the missions of the Service and the Refuge System, and the mandates, plans, and conservation initiatives above. These goals are intentionally broad, descriptive statements of purpose. They highlight elements of our vision for the refuge we will emphasize in its future management. The biological goals take precedence; but otherwise, we do not present them in any particular order. Each offers background information on its importance. In Chapter 2, “Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative,” we evaluate different ways of achieving these goals.
Goal 1. Manage open water and wetland habitats to benefit Federal trust species and other species of conservation concern.
Background
A rich variety of wetland communities on the refuge supports an array of habitats benefiting widely diverse species of animals and plants. The Magalloway River, Whaleback Ponds, Greater Floating Island, Mountain Pond, Tidswell Point, and Dead Cambridge areas all contain extensive wetlands, some with such rare species as heart-leaved twayblade or bog sedge. Rapp (2003) documented an unusual occurrence of a circumneutral fen at Tidswell Point. The refuge peatlands are among the largest and most diverse in the state (Sperduto et al. 2000).
The Service, other federal and state agencies, conservation organizations, sporting groups, and local residents recognize the importance of those unique wetland and wildlife resources. Protecting the lake and its associated rivers and wetlands was a principal reason for establishing the refuge. Those habitats support threatened and endangered species, waterfowl and other migratory species of federal and state concern and populations of mammals, reptiles, amphibians and fish and rare plants. As we mentioned above, New Hampshire lists the refuge as a priority for protection under the NAWMP, as does the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (USFWS 1991).
The refuge is unique in the region for its diversity of breeding waterfowl. Its marshes and backwaters, forested and shrub wetlands and adjacent forested and cut-over uplands provide important nesting and brood-rearing habitat for such waterfowl as black duck, ring-necked duck, and cavity-nesters, including common goldeneye, wood duck, common merganser, and hooded merganser. Blue-winged teal, green-winged teal and mallard also nest in the area.
Lake levels on Umbagog Lake are managed by the operator of a dam at the outlet of the lake in accordance with a license issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The current license issued by FERC is for the Errol Project (FERC no. 3133). It was issued in 1983 for a 40-year term, and both it and this CCP will therefore expire in 2023. The license is currently held by Florida Power and Light Energy Maine (FPLE). The current license requires that the licensee “…conduct a study to determine the reservoir surface elevation and time of year at which stable waters levels should be maintained for the protection of nesting wildlife at Lake Umbagog.” The licensee is further required to “…develop a plan to regulate the level of Lake Umbagog for the benefit of wildlife species and the water users downstream of the Errol Project.” In the past, this has meant limiting water level fluctuations during the loon nesting season in June and July. Wetlands management by the refuge must therefore recognize that water level fluctuations are neither entirely natural nor directly controlled by the refuge. The FERC license and related issues are further discussed in Chapter 3.
Refuge Goals­Refuge Goals
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action
1-21
Goal 2. Manage floodplain and lakeshore forests to benefit Federal trust species and other species of conservation concern.
Background
The refuge floodplain and lakeshore forests lie next to water bodies and non-forested wetlands, and typically have high species richness with dynamic and complex biophysical processes. These habitats are important for many wildlife species of concern, including nesting and foraging waterfowl, bald eagles, ospreys, and many migratory songbirds. They provide important structural components, including large nest trees for eagles and ospreys and cavity trees for nesting common goldeneye, wood duck, and certain songbirds. These habitats also help control erosion and sediment loading into the lake and its tributaries. Without forested shorelines, stream banks in this area are more susceptible to erosion. The New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau (NHNHB) has defined an area along the Magalloway River as a rare type of silver maple floodplain forest community of conservation concern.
Most of the vernal pools on the refuge are embedded in floodplain forested habitats. A vernal pool is a small body of water that lacks a permanent, aboveground outlet. In the Northeast, snowmelt and spring and autumn rains fill vernal pools. They typically dry by mid-to-late summer, or earlier in years of drought. How long water stays in a vernal pool is its hydroperiod, which varies depending on the pool and the year. Maintaining vernal pools with a range of hydroperiods is important in sustaining vernal pool biodiversity. Because of that periodic drying, vernal pools do not support breeding populations of fish. The vernal pools on the refuge contribute to its native biodiversity by providing essential habitat for several obligate amphibian species, including blue-spotted salamander, spotted salamander and wood frog.
The restoration of developed floodplain and lakeshore riparian areas involves removing cabins and other structures, purchased from willing sellers, as funding and staffing allows. In 1996, the refuge acquired cabin leases on the land purchased from the James River, Boise Cascade, and Mead Paper companies. These acquired leases include stipulations to allow their continued use, but requires there be minimal impacts on resources. All leases expire at 50 years.
Goal 3. Manage upland forest habitats, consistent with site capabilities, to benefit Federal trust species and other species of conservation concern.
Background
Forests cover 90 percent of the Upper Androscoggin River watershed. The dominant tree species include red spruce, balsam fir, sugar maple, red maple, yellow birch, and white birch. At the landscape level, the matrix forest is a mixed spruce-fir/northern hardwoods forest; although embedded in that matrix, three broad vegetation types are found in varying amounts: spruce-fir, mixed softwoods-hardwoods, and northern hardwoods. The spruce-fir type is dominated by at least 75 percent red spruce and/or balsam fir at higher elevations, above 2700 ft., on thin, rocky soils at mid-elevations and on nutrient-poor soils in valley bottoms. The mixed hardwood-softwood forest type includes varying amounts of the major tree species in the region, depending on site conditions (Publicover and Weihrauch 2003). Bill Leak, a forester with the U.S Forest Service’s Northeast Forest Experiment Station, considers a stand with 25 percent to 65 percent softwood a “mixed wood” stand (Leak, personal communication, 2004). White pine, hemlock, white spruce, northern white cedar, tamarack, black spruce, yellow and white birch, and red maple are also present in varying amounts. The northern hardwoods type is a mixture of at least 75 percent sugar maple, yellow birch, and beech on fine-textured soils at lower and mid-slopes.
Purple-fringed orchid
©Robert QuinnChapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action
Refuge Goals
1-22
Forest ecologists believe that the forest in the Upper Androscoggin River watershed of 150 years ago was also a mixed forest matrix; however, it supported more softwoods than we see on the landscape today (Kuchler 1964; Charlie Cogbill, personal communication, 2004). Multiple cycles of timber harvesting during the past 150 years affected forest composition. The selective harvesting of softwoods has converted many spruce-fir stands to mixed stands, and mixed stands to hardwood stands. In the absence of further human disturbance, natural succession and disturbance patterns will shift these forests to a higher proportion of softwood (Publicover and Weihrauch 2003). Our analysis for this CCP confirms that this mixed forest type, with a high proportion of softwoods, has the highest natural potential for growth in our area. That analysis included a site capability assessment using The Nature Conservancy (TNC) ecological land units (a combination of elevation, bedrock geology, and topography), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soils surveys, and aerial photo interpretation.
Pre-settlement forests are believed to have been multi-aged with a diverse structure including a variety of tree sizes, many large-diameter trees, multiple canopy layers, deep forest duff, and a “pit-and-mound” forest floor. The canopy, shrub, and herbaceous layers of the mixed forests around the refuge today have varying composition and coverage depending on specific site conditions and disturbance history (Rapp 2003).
The breeding bird survey data over the last 30 years shows the importance of this mixed forest habitat for species of concern such as blackburnian warbler, Canada warbler, and black-throated-green warbler (appendix N). A structurally complex (e.g., vertical diversity, coarse woody debris, large-diameter trees with cavities) mixed forest landscape also supports large, wide-ranging mammals, including marten, fisher, bobcat, and lynx (Ray 2000).
Although no stands of old growth forest are present on the refuge, it contains a few conifer stands with some late-seral characteristics, such as large-diameter trees. Hagen and Whitman (2004) report on the looming loss of late-successional forest in working forest landscapes including northern New England and the negative consequences for forest biodiversity. They note that forests develop along a continuum and, despite a harvest history, a stand can retain and develop such old growth characteristics as large live trees 100–200 years old, large dead trees, and fallen logs. Species associated with those characteristics include mosses, lichens, fungi, and insects.
Natural disturbance regimes affected by long-term climate change and disturbance patterns on the landscape are highly influenced by soil, topography, and forest type (Lorimer 2001; Lorimer and White 2003). Natural disturbance patterns for this region occur at two different scales. Large-scale, stand replacement disturbances from fire and wind occur infrequently, on the magnitude of 1000+ years. Small-scale disturbances, creating single tree-fall gaps, occur frequently (50–200-year return rates) (Lorimer 1977; Seymour et al. 2002). Pure stands of spruce and fir are much more susceptible to windthrow, insect outbreaks, and crown fires than associated hardwood species, because of their shallow root system, prevalence in swamps and on upland sites with thin, stony soils or on upper slopes exposed to high winds. Large areas of mixed spruce-hardwood that typically grow on better soils are rarely destroyed (i.e., stand replacement) by large-scale disturbances (Lorimer and White 2003).
Goal 4. Provide high quality wildlife-dependent activities such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, as well as camping and boating in support of those activities.
Background
Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography are four of the six priority public uses designated by the Refuge Improvement Act. The other two priority
Black-backed woodpecker
©Robert QuinnRefuge Goals
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action
1-23
uses are environmental education and interpretation (see goal 5 below). The Act stipulates those six uses are to receive enhanced consideration in refuge planning. Opportunities to engage in them should be provided to the extent compatible with refuge goals and objectives. Our objectives aim at providing high-quality opportunities for each of these four activities in ways consistent and compatible with the priorities of our other refuge programs, including opportunities for the other two priority uses. The Refuge Improvement Act does not establish a hierarchy among the six uses, but provides for refuge managers to determine whether any or all are appropriate and compatible. The ability to fund the management of these activities is also a factor for refuge managers to consider in determining their compatibility. Service policy requires that refuge managers set limits on, and establish stipulations for, any of those activities as warranted to ensure their compatibility.
Each of these activities is already facilitated on current refuge lands; however, we propose to improve current opportunities through new infrastructure or improved access.
Goal 5. Develop high-quality interpretative opportunities, and facilitate environmental education, to promote an understanding and appreciation for the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats, as well as the role of the refuge in the Northern Forest.
Background
This goal complements goal 4 by recognizing the importance of the remaining two priority public uses: environmental education and interpretation. Its objectives focus on providing informational and educational opportunities about the significance of the refuge and its role in conserving the Northern Forest to audiences of all ages. We strive to foster our visitor’s appreciation of wildlife conservation and encourage them to make responsible environmental decisions in the future.
Our proposed future programs will achieve our objectives through increased visitor contacts, on-site programs, and new and improved infrastructure. Our emphasis will be on providing interpretive resources with planned infrastructure (e.g. trails, roadside pullouts, and a visitor contact facility). We will facilitate the use of refuge lands for educational purposes; however, we will look to our state and conservation partners, local and state educators, Friends Group, and/or volunteers to lead the development of educational programs.
One desired outcome of our programs is that participants recognize we manage the refuge to provide a variety of habitats to benefit Northern Forest wildlife, with particular emphasis on migratory birds and wetlands. Through high-quality programs, visitors will gain a better understanding of the unique and important contribution of this refuge to migratory bird conservation and the Refuge System.
Goal 6. Enhance the conservation and management of wildlife resources in the Northern Forest Region through partnerships with public and private conservation groups, private landowners, State and local entities.
Background
The Northern Forest stretches from the St. Croix River in Maine westward through New Hampshire and Vermont across the Adirondack Mountains to the Tug Hill plateau in New York. It includes the largest contiguous forest remaining in the eastern United States. Those 26 million acres encompass the most remote, pristine lakes in the Northeast, the headwaters of the Hudson, Connecticut, St. John and other great eastern rivers, and vast tracts of forest that provide habitats for an impressive array of species, including many that are federal-listed Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action
Refuge Goals
1-24
as threatened or endangered or regional or state species of high conservation concern. Close to a million people live in that landscape, and many of them depend on the forest to sustain their communities and quality of life.
In the last decade, significant changes in land use have threatened the natural landscape, culture, and communities of the region. Huge forest landholdings, many owned by multinational corporations, are being sold at an accelerated rate.
Many of the large, contiguous tracts are being divided into smaller tracts and sold to developers or institutional investment corporations, including insurance companies and bank trusts, whose interests are purely economic. Those sales raise concerns about the rising trend of unsustainable timber cutting, forest subdivision, and other permanent development, particularly around lakefronts and in secluded forest tracts. In addition to fragmenting the forests, those developments destroy wildlife habitat, restrict public access, degrade water quality, spoil the remote and scenic beauty of the forest, and undermine the hope of a sustainable, forest-based economy to support Northern Forest communities. More recently, a shift to renewable energy sources may impact forest management on a regional scale. In May, 2007 New Hampshire enacted the Renewable Energy Act, which codified the renewable portfolio standards for the state. This law requires that all suppliers of electricity in the state demonstrate that they are obtaining 25% of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2025. Included in the list of renewable energy sources are biomass, wind, hydropower, and solar, among others. Since biomass energy production facilities can utilize wood products not traditionally used by the pulp and paper industry, a large-scale shift to electricity production from biomass facilities has the potential of altering forest stand structure, rotation ages, species composition, soil nutrient levels, and wildlife habitat on a landscape scale..
Those concerns underscore the need for partners who will work together to permanently conserve the ecological integrity of the Northern Forest, preserve public recreational opportunities, and promote the economic sustainability of a forest-based economy. Fortunately, an impressive partnership already exists in the region including over a dozen federal, state, non-governmental, and private entities, who share this common mission. In addition, these partners’ landholdings collectively create a conservation lands network, as depicted on map 1-1, which provides a basis for further connecting and conserving resources of conservation concern. The Service is a key partner in this effort, and refuge lands are integral to the land conservation network. Chapter 2 discusses alternative ways of sustaining the partnership and the Service role in it. Appendix A, “Land Protection Plan,” presents our preferred vision for expanding our contribution to the partnership and the land conservation network, all in support of sustaining Federal trust resources.
Goal 7. Develop the refuge as an outstanding center for research and development of applied management practices to sustain and enhance the natural resources in the Northern Forest in concert with the Refuge System Land Management and Research Demonstration Area program.
Background
In 1999, the leadership of the Refuge System published their vision for its programs and management priorities in a publication titled “Fulfilling the Promise, the National Wildlife Refuge System” (USFWS 1999). Forty-two different recommendations were identified. One of those was to designate Land Management and Research Demonstration (LMRD) Areas. They envisioned LMRD areas as “places where new habitat management techniques and approaches are developed, implemented, and showcased…places where Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action
1-25
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
professional land managers and others come to learn about cutting edge habitat management techniques and technology, and carry back with them the information and knowledge which allows them to better manage their own lands.” Specifically, the recommendation was to designate areas “to facilitate development, testing, teaching, publishing, and demonstration of state-of-the-art management techniques that support the critical habitat management information needs for fish, wildlife, and plant conservation within the System and other lands” (USFWS 1999).
The implementation of that recommendation has begun. Nationwide, 5 of the 14 LMRD areas approved by the Directorate are now funded and in operation. Those are (1) Hanford Reach National Monument and Saddle Mountain refuge in Washington, (2) the National Elk refuge and National Bison Range in Montana, (3) the Rachel Carson and Parker River refuges in Maine and Massachusetts, (4) the Neal Smith and Northern Tallgrass Prairie refuges in Iowa, and (5) the Bosque del Apache refuge in Arizona. Each of those LMRD areas has a different habitat management focus. Lake Umbagog refuge, in partnership with the Moosehorn refuge and the Nulhegan Division of the Silvio O. Conte refuge, is another approved LMRD area, but lacks funding to implement programs.
Its focus is the management and restoration of habitats in the working forest landscape of the Northern Forest ecosystem. Research will be implemented in cooperation and coordination with other northern forest research entities, such as universities, Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, and the U.S. Forest Service Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory.
Service policy establishes an eight-step planning process that also facilitates our compliance with NEPA (figure 1.1).1 Our planning policy and CCP training course materials describe those steps in detail. We followed that process in developing this Final CCP/EIS.
Since 1992, we have focused on conserving land within the approved refuge boundary, facilitating wildlife-dependent public uses, managing habitat for several focus species, such as common loon and bald eagle, and establishing relationships with the community and our partners. In 2001, we began to prepare for developing a CCP by collecting information on refuge resources and mapping its habitats. We convened our core team, which consists of refuge staff, regional office staff, and representatives of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) and the New Hampshire Fish and Game (NHFG). We discussed management issues, drafted a vision statement and tentative goals, and compiled a project mailing list of known stakeholders, interested individuals, organizations, and agencies. We also conducted a wilderness review, evaluated wild and scenic rivers potential, and summarized our biological inventory and monitoring information. We initiated all of those steps as part of “Step A: Preplanning.”
In August 2001, we initiated “Step B: Initiate Public Involvement and Scoping” by distributing a newsletter to announce that we were beginning the planning process and ask if people wanted to be on our mailing list. In June 2002, we distributed approximately 1,000 copies of a Planning Newsletter and Issues Workbook to everyone on our mailing list. Those workbooks asked people to share what they valued most about the refuge, their vision for its future and the Service role in their community, and any other issues they wanted to raise. We received 131 completed workbooks.
1 602 FW 3, “The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process”
(http://policy.fws.gov/602fw3.html)
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process1-26 Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action
On July 16, 2002, we formally announced the start of the planning process in
a Federal Register Notice of Intent. During that July and August, we held
eight public scoping meetings to identify public issues and concerns, share our
draft vision statement and tentative goals, describe the planning process, and
explain how people could become involved and stay informed about the process.
We announced their locations, dates, and times in local newspapers and special
mailings. More than 115 people attended. Those meetings helped us identify
the public concerns we would need to address in the planning process. We also
solicited public issues and concerns at our booth at the August 2002 Umbagog
Wildlife Festival.
Figure 1.1. The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
We worked on “Step C: Review Vision Statement, Goals, and Identify Significant
Issues” and “Step D: Develop and Analyze Alternatives” concurrently in 2003
and 2004 in two technical workshops: one on upland forest habitat management
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
A. Preplanning:
Plan the Plan
NEPA
• purpose and need
H. Review & Revise Plan
NEPA
• NEPA compliance & public involvement
when applicable
B. Initiate Public
Involvement & Scoping
NEPA
• notify the public
• involve the public
• scope the issues
F. Prepare & Adopt Final Plan
NEPA
• respond to public comment
• identify preferred alternative
• prepare & distribute final CCP and
NEPA documentation
• prepare & distribute FONSI for EA or
ROD for EIS
B. Initiate Public
Involvement & Scoping
NEPA
• notify the public
• involve the public
• scope the issues
G. Implement Plan, Monitor &
Evaluate
NEPA
• NEPA compliance & public involvement
when applicable
C. Review Vision Statement &
Goals & Determine Significant
Issues
NEPA
• identify significant issues
E. Prepare Draft Plan &
NEPA Document
NEPA
• prepare and distribute draft CCP
and NEPA documentation
• public comment & review
The Comprehensive
Conservation Planning
Process & NEPA
Compliance
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action
1-27
and one on wetlands management. We invited resource professionals and scientific experts to share their opinions on the significance of refuge resources, namely, their assessment of the health, diversity, and integrity of its habitats. We also met with elected officials, our state partners, and other Service divisions to apprise them of the status of the project and exchange technical information. For much of 2004 and into 2005, we compiled and analyzed various management alternatives to serve as the foundation for developing the Draft CCP/EIS. In August 2005, we distributed a newsletter summarizing the alternatives in detail and updating our planning timeframes.
Also in 2004 and into 2005, the USGS Fort Collins Science Center helped us develop and implement a stakeholder survey to provide us with information on public satisfaction, preferences, and expectations regarding our current and proposed refuge management. The final survey report provided valuable information for our management proposals. We distributed an Executive Summary of the results in November 2005. You may request the full report from refuge headquarters in hard copy or CD-ROM, or view it online at
http://www.fort.usgs.gov/products/publications/21507/21507.asp.
We completed “Step E: Prepare Draft Plan and NEPA document,” by publishing our Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Federal Register announcing the release of the Draft CCP/EIS and distributing it for public comment. During that 77-day period of public review, we held public hearings to obtain comments. We received comments by regular mail, electronic mail, and as testimony in those public hearings. We reviewed and summarized all of the comments and developed responses to them. A summary of public comments and our responses to them are presented in appendix O this Final CCP/EIS.
We are now releasing our Final CCP/EIS for a 30-day public review period. Its availability has been announced in a NOA in the Federal Register. After the public review period, we will prepare a Record of Decision (ROD) for our Regional Director. If he approves and signs the ROD this will complete the planning process. We will announce the availability of the ROD in another NOA in the Federal Register. That will complete “Step F: Prepare and Adopt a Final Plan.” We can then begin “Step G: Implement Plan, Monitor and Evaluate.”
We will modify the final CCP following the procedures in Service policy (602 FW 1, 3, and 4) and NEPA requirements as part of “Step H: Review and Revise Plan.” Minor revisions that meet the criteria for categorical exclusions (550 FW 3.3C) will require only an Environmental Action Memorandum. We must fully revise CCPs every 15 years.
From our Issues Workbook, public and focus group meetings, and planning team discussions, we developed a list of issues, opportunities, or any other item requiring a management decision. We concentrated further on those issues, as they drive our analysis and comparison of alternatives. We will address three categories of issues in the CCP/EIS.
Significant issues.—Our partners or the public brought these issues to our attention during the scoping process. Our discussions generated a wide range of opinions on how to resolve them, summarized below. We applied those in creating the primary distinctions among the objectives and strategies in each alternative in chapter 2. Ultimately, they will influence our final decision, because their resolution falls within the jurisdiction and authority of the Service.
Other issues and management concerns.—These issues are narrower in scope or interest than the significant issues, but still in that range of opinions. The alternatives resolve them similarly (see “Management Actions Common to all Alternatives” in chapter 2).
Issues, Concerns and OpportunitiesIssues and concerns outside the scope of this analysis.—The resolution of these issues falls outside the scope of this EIS or outside the jurisdiction or authority of the Service. Although we discuss them briefly in this chapter, we do not address them further in this Final CCP/EIS.
Addressing the 11 significant issues below will help us achieve the seven goals above. Chapter 2 describes in detail how the alternatives address these significant issues, and how addressing them will help achieve refuge goals.
1. Which wetland habitats and wetland-dependent species should be management priorities? How will we manage for them on the refuge?
Because one of the purposes for establishing the refuge is to conserve wetlands, addressing this issue is a high priority. It is also a challenge. The water levels in Umbagog Lake directly influence most of the refuge wetlands. The holder of the FERC license controls those water levels, which fluctuate according to releases at Errol Dam. The current licensee, FPLE, meets with the Service annually, as required by its license, to agree on water levels in June and July when birds are breeding and nesting.
To offset our limited direct influence on water levels, some input we received recommends we manage refuge wetlands by planting wild rice, promoting beaver activity, reducing or eliminating external threats of erosion or pollution, controlling access to wetlands, and eliminating invasive species. We believe, as do wetland experts who provided input on this issue, that managing water levels more effectively throughout the year would improve habitat quality for species of conservation concern and other wetland-dependent native species, and sustain such unique wetland types as the Floating Island National Natural Landmark (FINNL).
Those recommendations vary considerably on the timing, extent, and focus of wetlands management. Some suggest we establish more baseline biological information before we manage the refuge wetlands. Others suggest we first work with the current holder of the FERC license, to discuss a year-round regime of water levels that will be more beneficial for wildlife and wetlands. As in any aspect of refuge management, our decisions on managing refuge wetlands could benefit one species of conservation concern, but adversely affect another.
2. Which upland forest habitats and forest-dependent species should be management priorities? How will we manage for them on the refuge?
The decision document establishing the refuge (USFWS 1991) also recognizes that its upland forests play a crucial role in conserving the lake, its rivers and associated wetlands. This document recognized that the refuge was part of a larger conservation partnership to protect and manage timber, wetland, and wildlife resources of the Umbagog area. Conservation easements held by the State of New Hampshire on some of the upland portions of the Refuge specifically granted timber management rights.
Uplands compose at least 58 percent of the refuge. During the last 10 years, we acquired much of that upland forest from timber companies who harvested it intensively before selling it to the Service. The vegetation now growing back on some of those areas lacks the natural species diversity, age-class distribution, and structural components of healthy native forests in the Upper Androscoggin River watershed.
Only in the last 5 years have we acquired enough contiguous forested upland to form efficient management units. Primarily for that reason, we have not managed the vegetation on those lands. During our public scoping, many people
Significant Issues
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
1-28encouraged us to manage those areas to bring them into a more natural, healthy forest condition. Some would like us to manage the upland forests on the refuge exclusively as working forests to promote tree growth and productivity for commercial purposes. Others would like us to initiate some action to get those areas on a natural path sustainable without further human intervention. Some suggested we focus our management on benefiting species that depend on upland forest habitats, particularly, migratory songbirds that regional and state conservation plans have identified as conservation concerns in the last 5 years. Some of those species require mature forest stands, while others prefer a mix of age classes and types. Again, our management decisions could benefit one species of conservation concern but adversely affect another.
Other individuals and organizations encouraged us to expand the refuge as a means of conserving large areas of undeveloped forest lands to benefit species that require contiguous interior forest habitats. Still others expressed an interest in our conducting very little to no active vegetation management in the uplands. Some believe “nature should take its course,” and that the forested areas will recover without our help.
3. What is the appropriate level for each of the six priority public use programs on the refuge? What means of access will we allow for those activities?
The Refuge Improvement Act does not establish a hierarchy among its six priority, wildlife-dependent compatible uses. At times, they may conflict. At other times, the refuge may lack sufficient resources to promote all of them equally. Some people expressed concerns that we may allocate refuge resources disproportionately toward one use to the detriment of another. Service policy authorizes the refuge manager to allocate time and space for those uses to reduce conflict, or terminate or disallow one or more of them. The refuge manager must evaluate, among other things, which use most directly support the long-term attainment of refuge purposes and the Refuge System mission.
During the public scoping process, we heard from many people concerned about a rising number of conflicts between visitors in motorboats and visitors in canoes and kayaks. Both groups typically are involved in priority public uses such as fishing and wildlife viewing. Those promoting motorboats suggest limits on the number of kayakers and canoeists or the size of groups, because the increase in large group trips affects the ability of motorboats to maneuver on the river corridors. Those promoting kayaks and canoes voice their concern over the noise and speed of motorboats disturbing wildlife and affecting viewing opportunities. They also express concern about their own safety, because of the wakes motorboats create. Some motorboat operators suggest that kayakers and canoeists could create more wildlife disturbance by their access to small, quiet coves where some wildlife hide or rest.
Unfortunately, we get reports each year of verbal confrontations between users of motorized and non-motorized boats. Although we cannot prevent all such encounters, our enforcement focuses on people operating boats in a reckless manner, or in a manner that endangers or is likely to endanger any person, property or wildlife.
An additional challenge for the refuge manager and our state partners is determining the capacity of the refuge and the lake to support these priority compatible uses and still provide visitors with a quality experience. We also need to be aware of their impacts on adjacent lands. Several landowners expressed concern that increased boating has increased trespassing onto private land. Boaters have left behind trash and human waste, and have parked or camped where they do not have permission.
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action
1-294. How will we manage furbearer populations?
The term “furbearer” includes all mammals that possess some form of hair (TWS 2001). However, we use the term to identify species hunted or trapped for their fur, including carnivores and rodents. Beaver, bobcat, coyote, fisher, fox, marten, mink, and muskrat are common furbearers on the refuge. Furbearer populations are dynamic; many are capable of doubling their populations in a single year, while others are more subject to limiting habitat factors. For example, muskrat populations can fluctuate dramatically each year. They can decline by 75 percent in the winter and rebound completely by the next fall (TWS 2001). As land managers, we become concerned when furbearer populations meet or exceed the biological carrying capacity of refuge habitats.
The complex subject of furbearer management is also controversial at the national and state levels. Most of the controversy surrounds regulated trapping. We heard from people who object only to certain trapping methods, particularly the foothold trap on land. However, other opponents have moral and ethical objections to killing animals, and do not support any form of trapping.
We also heard from proponents of regulated trapping who believe it provides an important, effective method for managing furbearer populations, is a sustainable use of wildlife resources, and allows for a rural, self-sufficient, subsistence lifestyle of historical significance in the Northern Forest. Supporters acknowledge the Refuge System mission to conserve, protect, and enhance viable populations of native wildlife such as furbearers, but contend that harvesting some furbearers does not threaten the continued survival of their populations (TWS 2001). They often compare it to our hunting and fishing programs in that regard. However, trapping is not one of the six priority public uses in the Refuge Improvement Act.
5. How will we manage compatible, non-priority recreational uses on the refuge?
Some of the historical uses on the refuge are not priority uses, nor are they wildlife-dependent, but the refuge manager may determine them compatible after further analysis in this Final CCP/EIS. However, Service policy provides that a use that might be compatible, in the sense that it may not materially interfere with the purpose of the refuge or the Refuge System’s mission, but may nonetheless be inappropriate based on compliance with other laws and policy, the availability of resources to manage the uses, possible conflicts with other uses, safety concerns, or other administrative factors.
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
1-30
Snowmobiling
on the refuge
Marvin Moriarty/USFWSWe heard from people both supporting and opposing certain non-priority uses that have historic precedence in the area. Most frequently discussed during public scoping were (1) snowmobiling, a very popular recreational activity, and increasingly important to the local economy; and, (2) furbearer trapping, a recreational activity with cultural and historic roots in the region. We discuss our proposed recommendations for those two activities in chapter 2. We also present in Chapter 2 those activities the refuge manager has previously determined not appropriate and his rationale for not evaluating them further.
For non-priority activities to be compatible and allowed, they would have to be managed so they do not conflict with the goals and objectives for biological and visitor services priorities in the final CCP, are consistent with public safety, and are manageable within the limitations of the refuge budget and available staff. If a priority and non-priority public use conflict, the priority public use will take precedence (603 FW 2). Some people we spoke with argued that these activities detract from our ability to provide priority public uses. They pointed out the limited refuge staff and annual funding of recent years, and did not believe we can manage these activities properly in addition to higher priority programs. Others simply stated they do not believe these activities are appropriate for a national wildlife refuge, and informed us they will review and be critical of any compatibility determination that allows them. That opposition ranged from those opposed to certain activities on ethical and moral grounds, to those concerned with visitor safety and those concerned with direct impacts on wildlife and habitats. We also heard from individuals who support many of these activities.
6. How will we manage camping in remote areas on the refuge?
A developed campground in Umbagog Lake State Park on the south end of the lake is accessible by car from Route 26. The park also includes 30 remote camping sites around the lake, all seasonally open and administered by the State of New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development (NHDRED), Division of Parks and Recreation. Fourteen of those camping sites are on refuge lands; of which 12 are on the lake, and 2 are on rivers. Our ongoing partnership with the state to conserve Umbagog Lake is a very successful, valuable relationship that facilitates wildlife conservation and provides unique recreational opportunities in the Northern Forest. The remote camping sites are extremely popular, and are consistently occupied during the open season. We hear from many people that the highlight of their trip is the opportunity to hear and see loons calling near the campsites at dusk and dawn.
Although we heard from individuals who advocate maintaining camping at its current level, we did not hear from anyone who recommended increasing the number of sites. Some, who expressed support for camping in general, would like to see a reduction in the total number of sites because they are concerned about the total number of visitors to the area, and believe camping encourages group activities. Others felt that continuous use had adversely affected some of the sites, and would like to see them restored.
Some people told us that they do not believe camping is appropriate in a national wildlife refuge, especially if site development or intensive use adversely affect natural habitat. Others expressed concern that the remote sites only encourage inexperienced boaters to get out onto the lake and jeopardize their safety and that of others.
7. How will we manage outfitters and guides on the refuge?
We heard a range of opinions about the desirability of the current level of guided or group tours which occur on adjacent ownerships. Several individuals
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action
1-31expressed concern that guided tours have increased over the last five years, but do not appear to be regulated by any agency. Some of the same people believe that outfitting and guiding is already at its capacity, and opposed group tours because they facilitate getting more visitors to the lake and its surroundings. Others supported guiding as an activity, because it was their livelihood, or because they believe it enhances visitors’ experiences by providing safe and successful opportunities for viewing wildlife, photographing nature, hunting, or fishing.
According to Federal regulations and Service compatibility policy (603 FW 2), we may only authorize public or private economic uses of the natural resources on any national wildlife refuge in accordance with 16 U.S.C. 715s and 50 C.F.R. 1(29.1) when we determine that the use contributes to the achievement of the refuge purposes or the Refuge System mission. We may authorize an economic use, such as commercially guided trips, by special use permit only when the refuge manager has determined the use is appropriate and compatible. The permit must contain terms, conditions, and stipulations to ensure compatibility.
Our authority to administer these activities on Umbagog Lake is limited to the lands and waters where the Service has an ownership interest. We have not evaluated these activities because we have had no requests to do so. Once a request is received, we will evaluate the use for appropriateness and compatibility.
8. What should be the refuge role in conserving land in the Upper Androscoggin River watershed? Should we pursue a refuge expansion?
Goal 6 describes significant changes in land use in the Northern Forest and our role in the existing collaborative partnership helping to conserve important habitats, maintain outdoor recreational opportunities, and sustain a viable economic and social quality of life. Our partners and we will continue to use many tools and techniques for accomplishing this mission which range from outreach and education, research and demonstration areas, private lands assistance programs, cooperative management agreements, conservation easements, and land acquisition. Each of those is a tool, although our ability to use these effectively will depend on other factors previously discussed, such as refuge staffing, funding, and the continued strength and collaboration of our partnerships.
In that list of potential methods, land conservation garners the most public attention and interest. We heard a wide range of opinions on whether the refuge should continue to expand. Some people expressed concern that federal ownership will result in a greatly diminished local voice in how those lands are managed and used, and they expect the result will be additional restrictions on non-priority public uses, which they view as “traditional” uses. They believe the Service will not be responsive to local concerns, and that the lands will no longer be subject to local influences. Many people specifically fear a significant loss of commercial timber harvest and its potential impacts on the local economy. Others are concerned about the loss in property taxes, because the Federal Government does not pay property taxes.
However, many expressed support for land conservation for the reasons identified in goal 6 above, including the fact that owners are selling huge landholdings and subdividing them into smaller tracts at an alarming rate. Some people expressed the opinion that state agencies, local governments, or non-governmental entities should take the lead in land protection, and that the Service should play only a supporting role. Others suggested that the Service pursue conservation easements and private lands cooperative management agreements instead of fee
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
1-32simple purchases as a means of protection. They mentioned that this would also alleviate concerns about the impact on local property taxes.
On the other hand, we heard from many people that Service acquisition of fee title lands was the only way to guarantee the permanent conservation and management of the lands to support native wildlife. Some recognized the importance of the land conservation partnership and lands network that exists and encouraged our continued active involvement, including support for a refuge expansion. They mentioned the benefits of permanently conserving important habitats, the increased opportunities for public access and recreation in areas either not currently open or not guaranteed to be open long-term. Finally, they pointed out that expanding the refuge would maintain the rural character and quality of life so important to many.
9. How can the refuge and its staff be an asset for local communities and support their respective vision and goals for the area?
Our goal is to become an integral part of the economic and social health and vitality of local and regional communities. The challenge for us is to understand the visions of the respective communities and our role in them while staying true to our mission. We need to determine how best to cultivate relationships in the area, reach out to raise our visibility, and identify the resources we have to contribute. During public scoping, the comments we heard and the results of our stakeholder survey indicate some disappointment in the level of communication from refuge staff, and various levels of mistrust of what our agency does communicate.
Others mentioned that this situation is improving, but could be better. Several individuals requested a more transparent planning process with frequent opportunities to participate and share information. Others felt well informed about refuge activities, and valued the contribution of the refuge to their quality of life. Gaining community understanding, trust, and support for refuge programs is very important for our success in managing the refuge and contributing to conservation in the Northern Forest.
10. What staffing, budgets, and facilities are needed to effectively administer the refuge? Where should they be located?
Many people expressed concern about our ability to maintain existing and proposed infrastructure and implement programs on this refuge, given its current levels of staffing and funding. Some told us they recognize the logistical challenges for our four field staff in trying to manage the refuge land base, which straddles two states, is difficult to access in some places, and is significantly affected by Umbagog Lake and Errol Dam, neither of which falls under the direct authority of the Service. Fortunately, our strong partnerships with natural resource agencies in New Hampshire and Maine allow us to resolve most concerns expeditiously.
Some people expressed the opinion that the refuge needs a presence directly on the lakeshore to facilitate administration, outreach, and education of visitors on safety, lake use etiquette, and resource protection.
We also heard interest in insuring that there is adequate law enforcement capability on refuge lands. That is increasingly becoming a concern to many as public use on the refuge and adjacent lands increases. Our hope is that our new half-time refuge law enforcement officer and a full-time law enforcement zone officer shared among the refuges in Maine, northern New Hampshire and Vermont will meet our law enforcement needs and public expectations.
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action
1-33Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
1-34
Some people are concerned that any new proposals in this CCP will fall substantially above current budget allocations, thus raising unrealistic expectations. One individual pointed out that budgets can vary widely from year to year because they depend on annual congressional appropriations. Other people supported our pursuit of new management objectives and strategies in the hope that the CCP will establish new partnerships and sources of funding. In fact, several people made specific recommendations on sources of grants or ways to collaborate in certain programs or fund new infrastructure and other projects.
The alternatives recommend varying amounts of funding and staffing, (both permanent and seasonal), to implement programs over the next 15 years. In all of the alternatives, we recommend as essential the minimum staffing levels already approved for the refuge. Appendix H presents staffing recommendations by alternative. Appendix F identifies the funding needs by priority project identified in the 2005 Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS). We regularly update those databases.
11. What actions can Service staff implement on refuge lands to minimize the projected impacts from global and regional climate change?
Climate change is an issue of increasing public concern because of its potential effects on land, water, and biological resources. The issue was pushed to the forefront in 2007 when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), representing the world’s leading climate scientists, concluded that it is “unequivocal” that the Earth’s climate is warming, and that it is “very likely” (a greater than 90 percent certainty) that the heat-trapping emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities have caused “most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century” (IPCC 2007). The Northeast is already experiencing rising temperatures, with potentially dramatic warming expected later this century under some model predictions. According to the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment team, “continued warming, and more extensive climate-related changes to come could dramatically alter the region’s economy, landscape, character, and quality of life (NECIA 2007).
Other predicted climate-related changes, beyond warming temperatures, include changing patterns of precipitation, significant acceleration of sea level rise, changes in season lengths, decreasing range of nighttime versus daytime temperatures, declining snowpack, and increasing frequency and intensity of severe weather events (TWS 2004). Since wildlife species are closely adapted to their environments, they must respond to climate variations, and the subsequent changes in habitat conditions, or they will not survive. Unfortunately, the challenge for wildlife is all the more complicated by increases in other environmental stressors such as pollution, land use developments, ozone depletion, exotic species, and disease. Wildlife researchers and professionals, sportsmen, and other wildlife enthusiasts are encouraging positive and preemptive action by land managers. Some recommendations for action include: reducing or eliminating those environmental stressors to the extent possible;
Whaleback Pond
©Robert QuinnChapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action
1-35
Other Issues
managing lands to reduce risk of catastrophic events; managing for self-sustaining populations; and, looking for opportunities to ensure widespread habitat availability (TWS 2004).
All of the alternatives would manage wildlife and habitats under an adaptive management framework, and all would increase biological monitoring and inventories. These two actions are critically important for land managers to undertake in order to effectively respond to the uncertainty of future climate change effects. The alternatives differ, however, in the extent to which they take other specific actions to reduce environmental stressors, manage for self-sustaining populations, or ensure widespread habitat availability through land protection and conservation.
We explain how we will address the following issues and concerns in “Actions Common to all Alternatives” or “Actions Common to Alternatives B and C” in chapter 2. We organized them under their respective subject headings.
What should be the Service role in protecting national and local landmarks, ■■and cultural resources in the Umbagog Lake area?
What is the refuge role with respect to water level management in Umbagog ■■and associated lakes?
How can the refuge promote responsible use of Umbagog Lake in cooperation ■■with other jurisdictional and management agencies?
How will existing camp lease agreements, under special use permits (SUPs), ■■be affected by the CCP process?
How will we protect and manage deer winter yards?■■
How will we coordinate resource management with other state and federal ■■agencies in the Upper Androscoggin River watershed?
How can we work with other agencies to manage invasive plants and animals ■■(e.g. small mouth bass and milfoil) on the lake?
How will we manage fires (management-prescribed burns and wildland fires) ■■on the refuge?
1. Changing the timeline for FERC re-licensing of Errol Dam or changing the terms and conditions of the license
Some people expressed concerns with water level management in Umbagaog Lake, namely due to the management of Errol Dam. We heard concerns with water levels being too high, affecting waterbird breeding and nesting habitat. Others mentioned concerns with low water levels during the summer, exposing mudflats and affecting shoreline access to open water. Yet others indicated that if the Service or states had more control over water level management, habitat conditions for species of concern, and wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities, could be enhanced throughout the year.
Water levels are controlled, as noted above, by the holder of the license issued by FERC for the Errol Project (currently FPLE). Once FERC has issued a license, any party wanting FERC to change the terms must petition FERC to reopen the license in order to effectuate any change in its terms. The procedure for doing so requires the petitioner to supply a detailed administrative record justifying a change in the license terms, sufficient to convince FERC that the analysis it did
Other IssuesIssues Outside the Scope of this Analysis or Not Completely Within the Jurisdiction of the ServiceChapter 1. Purpose 1-36 of and Need for Action
Issues Outside the Scope of this Analysis or Not Completely Within the Jurisdiction of the Service
in issuing the license is no longer accurate, and that a change in the license terms is necessary. The licensee has a right to full administrative process under FERC regulations before its license can be changed by that agency. Such a challenge falls outside the scope of this CCP. Its purpose is to provide the Service with detailed goals and objectives for managing refuge lands, not to provide guidance to the Service concerning matters within the jurisdiction of a different federal agency. However, in chapter 2, alternative B proposes that we continue to meet annually with the licensee to discuss current terms and conditions of the license that relate to wildlife management during the breeding and nesting seasons and to discuss opportunities for habitat enhancement throughout the year.
The timeline for FERC re-licensing is also beyond the control of the Service, and hence beyond the scope of the CCP. The current FERC license for the Errol Project is due to expire in 2023, as will this CCP. Prior to 2023, the Service will be involved in both the drafting of a new CCP and in the licensing process for a renewal of the FERC license (assuming the licensee pursues this). This CCP is not intended to control either the Service’s opinions in the next planning cycle or its position before FERC in re-licensing, though actions taken under the CCP may affect environmental baseline conditions for both processes.
2. Giving or transferring refuge lands back to private or town ownership
We heard people express the opinion that the Service should give back, trade, or sell refuge lands to an entity more amenable to the local culture and history. The USGS stakeholder survey (Sexton et al. 2005) indicates that some local respondents do not trust the Federal Government to manage lands on their behalf. Issue 8 above identifies other concerns people expressed about Service ownership.
We established the refuge in 1992 with the first purchase of land after producing a draft and final environmental assessment (Service 1991). Both of these documents extensively evaluated the proposal to create the refuge, and alternatives to that proposal, and included public review and comment. We based our proposal on a strong federal-state partnership to cooperatively protect and manage nationally significant habitats in the area, with strong collaboration among the Service, New Hampshire and Maine state agencies, conservation organizations, and three principal landowners: the James River Company, Boise Cascades Paper Group, and Seven Islands Land Company. We agreed the Service was to take the lead in establishing the refuge on core lands, and New Hampshire and Maine were to take the lead in acquiring conservation easements in adjacent agreed-upon areas.
In addition to the 1991 Final EA establishing the refuge, our 2001 Regional Director’s decision to further expand the refuge addressed public and partner comments on land acquisition. Both decisions required the regiona