Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              Great Bay
National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment
February 2012
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (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 National Wildlife Refuge System
comprised of over 150 million acres including 555 national wildlife refuges and thousands of
waterfowl production areas. The Service also operates 70 national fish hatcheries and 81 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 (CCPs) provide long-term guidance for management decisions
on a refuge and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes.
CCPs also identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program levels
that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily
for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. CCPs do not constitute a
commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future
land acquisition.
This blue goose, designed by
J.N. “Ding” Darling, has become
the symbol of the National Wildlife
Refuge System.
Front cover:
Great Bay Refuge shoreline
near Woodman Point
USFWS
Karner blue butterfly
USFWS
Wood thrush
Bill Thompson
Northern myotis
Al Hicks/NYDEC
American black duck
USFWS
Back cover:
Great Bay Refuge shoreline
near Woodman Point
USFWS
Great Bay
National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment
February 2012
Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge will be a treasured cornerstone in protecting
and restoring the Great Bay Estuary’s unique and significant ecological and
cultural resources, which are unparalleled in New England. The estuary’s shallow
tidal waters will teem with a rich diversity of aquatic resources, from oysters and
eelgrass beds, to healthy populations of migratory fish. The refuge’s oak-hickory
forests, grasslands, shrublands, and freshwater ponds will support a bounty of
wildlife throughout the year. During winter, bald eagles will thrill refuge visitors
as they taunt the many and diverse flocks of waterfowl and waterbirds foraging
and resting in its quiet, protected waters. In spring, the refuge’s forests, fields,
and wetlands will fill with a symphony of bird songs and frog calls. The summer
will reward visitors with the opportunity to view native fledgling birds, fawns,
and other young of the year. During the fall, the refuge will host hundreds of
migrating species ranging from waterfowl, to songbirds, bats, and butterflies, all
needing safe haven in an increasingly urbanized landscape.
Visitors from throughout New England will travel to the refuge to become
immersed in the sights and sounds of nature. The refuge will showcase
innovative, science-based, adaptive management techniques and, coupled with
exceptional outreach, education, and interpretive programs, help raise awareness
and appreciation of the natural world and uphold the mission of the National
Wildlife Refuge System. The refuge, in collaboration with partners, will work
tirelessly to expand the protection and conservation of the Great Bay Estuary
and its native habitats and wildlife for the benefit of the American people.
The Karner blue butterfly easement lands in Concord, New Hampshire, will
contribute to the recovery of the federally endangered Karner blue butterfly.
Each spring, the flowers of native lupine plants growing among pitch pine on the
easement lands will attract thousands of adult Karner blue butterflies to feed on
nectar. During the summer, an abundance of Karner blue caterpillars will feed
on the lupine leaves. As part of an extraordinarily dedicated partnership, the
easement is a key link in the network of lands in the Concord area managed to
help reverse the butterfly’s decline and bring the species back from the brink of
extirpation.
Great Bay Refuge
Vision Statement
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
i
Great Bay
National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment
February 2012
Type of Action: Administrative–Development of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Location: Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Newington, New Hampshire
Administrative Headquarters: Parker River National Wildlife Refuge
Newburyport, Massachusetts
Responsible Official: Wendi Weber, Regional Director, Region 5
For Further Information: Nancy McGarigal, Natural Resource Planner
Northeast Regional Office
300 Westgate Center Drive
Hadley, MA 01035
(413) 253-8562
northeastplanning@fws.gov
This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment analyzes three alternatives for
managing the 1,103-acre Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge (Great Bay Refuge; the refuge) and the 29-acre
Karner blue butterfly conservation easement over the next 15 years. This document also contains 10 appendixes
that provide additional information supporting our analysis. Following is a brief overview of each alternative:
Alternative A–Current Management: Alternative A satisfies the National Environmental Policy Act
requirement of a “no action” alternative, which we define as “continuing current management.” It describes
our existing management priorities and activities for Great Bay Refuge and Karner blue butterfly conservation
easement, and serves as a baseline for comparing and contrasting alternatives B and C.
Alternative B–Habitat Diversity and Focal Species Emphasis: Alternative B is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service)-preferred alternative. It combines the actions we believe would best achieve the refuge’s
purposes, vision and goals, and respond to public issues. Under alternative B, we would emphasize the
management of specific refuge habitats to support focal species whose habitat needs benefit other species
of conservation concern that are found in the Great Bay region. In particular, we would focus on habitat for
priority migratory birds, such as the upland sandpiper; for rare and declining species, such as the New England
cottontail and Karner blue butterfly; and for estuarine species of concern, including oysters and eelgrass.
We propose removing the Lower Peverly Pond Dam to restore stream habitat, while maintaining the dams at
Upper Peverly Pond and Stubbs Pond to benefit a range of fish and wildlife. We would expand our conservation,
research, and management partnerships to help restore and conserve the Great Bay estuarine ecosystem. This
Summary
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
iii
Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan an iv d Environmental Assessment
Summary
alternative would enhance our visitor services programs, which have been limited under current management
due to lack of staff. On Great Bay Refuge, we propose to enhance the entrance to the refuge, create new
interpretive materials, expand our existing volunteer program, and offer visitors more opportunities to learn
about the refuge and the surrounding landscape. On the Karner blue butterfly easement, we propose to install
new interpretive signs, offer guided interpretive walks, and enhance our Web-based information.
Alternative C–Emphasis on Natural Processes: Alternative C would rely primarily on ecosystem processes
and natural disturbances to restore the biological integrity, diversity, and ecological health of Great Bay
Refuge. All grassland and shrubland habitat on the refuge would be allowed to naturally succeed to forest.
All three refuge impoundments would be removed, restoring Peverly Brook to stream habitat and returning
Stubbs Pond to salt marsh. We would also remove all remaining structures in the former Weapons Storage
Area. Under this alternative, we would expand the refuge visitor services program and public access. We would
construct two new trails and, as sensitive shrubland and grassland habitats succeed to forest, we would open up
larger portions of the refuge to public use. The management of the Karner blue butterfly easement would be
the same as that proposed under alternative B.
Chapters
Chapter 1 Purpose of, and Need for, Action
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
Purpose of, and Need for, Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
Service Policies, Legal Mandates, and Other Policies Guiding the Planning Process. . 1-7
National and Regional Plans and Conservation Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-12
Refuge Purposes and Land Acquisition History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-24
Refuge Vision Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-25
Refuge Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-26
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-27
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-28
Chapter 2 Affected Environment
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
Part I. The Regional Setting
Water Quality and Health of the Great Bay Estuary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
Conserved Lands Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
Land Use Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
Climate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
Air Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
The Historical Picture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
Regional Demographics and Economic Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10
Part II. The Refuge and its Resources
Refuge Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14
Refuge Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17
Cultural and Historic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-46
Public Use Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-48
Volunteer Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-50
Key Refuge Partnerships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-51
Karner Blue Butterfly Conservation Easement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-52
Chapter 3 Alternatives, Including the Service-preferred Alternative
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
Formulating Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
Actions Common to All of the Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
Actions Common to Alternatives B and C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12
Alternatives or Actions Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Study . . . . . . . . . 3-20
Alternatives Analyzed in Detail
Alternative A–Current Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21
Alternative B–Habitat Diversity and Focal Species Emphasis
(Service-preferred Alternative) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-30
Alternative C–Emphasis on Natural Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-79
Comparison of Objectives and Strategies for Great Bay Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . 3-89
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
Chapter Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
Regional Scale Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4
Refuge-specific Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16
v
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-37
Relationship Between Short-term Uses of the Human Environment and
Enhancement of Long-term Productivity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-44
Unavoidable Adverse Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-45
Potential Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-46
Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-46
Summary of the Impacts of the Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-47
Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
Planning Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
Contact Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
Planning Team. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
Other Service Program Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3
Partners Involved in Refuge Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3
Bibliography
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibl-13
Glossary, Acronyms, and Species Scientific Names
Glossary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glos-1
Acronyms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glos-7
List of Species and Their Scientific Names. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glos-10
Appendixes
Appendix A Species and Habitats of Concern Known, or Potentially Occurring, on Great Bay Refuge and
Karner Blue Butterfly Easement
Species and Habitats of Concern Known, or Potentially Occurring, on
Great Bay Refuge and Karner Blue Butterfly Easement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
Appendix B Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
Process Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
Literature Citations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-13
Appendix C Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations
Table of Contents
vi
Finding of Appropriateness—Berry Picking, Mushroom Collecting, and
Flower Picking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1
Finding of Appropriateness—Bicycling off Public Entrance Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-3
Finding of Appropriateness—Camping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-5
Finding of Appropriateness—Dog Walking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-7
Chapters (cont.)
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences (cont.)
Appendix D Wilderness Review
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1
Phase I. Wilderness Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1
Summary of Wilderness Inventory Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-5
Appendix E Refuge Operation Needs System (RONS) & Service Asset Maintenance Management
System (SAMMS) Projects
Refuge Operation Needs System & Service Asset Maintenance
Management System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1
Appendix F Staffing Chart
Staffing Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1
Appendix G Fire Management Program Guidance
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1
The Role of Fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1
Wildland Fire and Management Policy and Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1
Fire Management Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-2
Fire Management Program at Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-2
Appendix H Forest Health Assessment
Forest Health Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1
Appendix I Contaminants Review of the Peverly Brook Drainage Area
Contaminants Review of the Peverly Brook Drainage Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1
Appendix J Refuge Headquarters/Visitor Contact Station Proposed Under Alternatives B and C
Refuge Headquarters/Visitor Contact Station Proposed Under Alternatives B and C . . J-1
vii
Finding of Appropriateness—Geocaching. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-9
Finding of Appropriateness—Horseback Riding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-11
Finding of Appropriateness—Jogging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-13
Finding of Appropriateness—Commercial Wildlife and Nature Photography. . . . . . C-15
Compatibility Determination—Commercial Wildlife and Nature Photography . . . . . C-17
Finding of Appropriateness—Research by Non-Service Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . C-23
Compatibility Determination—Research Conducted by Non-Service Personnel . . . C-25
Finding of Appropriateness—Walking, Hiking, Cross Country Skiing, and
Snowshoeing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-37
Compatibility Determination—Walking, Hiking, Cross Country Skiing, and
Snowshoeing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-39
Compatibility Determination—Wildlife Observation and Photography,
Environmental Education, and Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-45
Compatibility Determination—Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-51
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Appendixes (cont.)
Appendix C Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations (cont.)
Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 The Service’s Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process . . . . . . 1-27
Figure J.1 Conceptualization of the Service’s Standard One-story Small
Administration Building and Visitor Contact Station. . . . . . . . . . . . J-3
Figure J.2 Generic Floor Plan of Service Standard One-story Small
Administration Building and Visitor Contact Station. . . . . . . . . . . . J-4
Table of Contents
viii
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Environmental Indicator Trends in the Great Bay Estuary . . . . . . . . . 2-2
Table 2.2 Conservation Lands Bordering Great Bay Estuary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
Table 2.3 Population Trends for Communities and the County Around
Great Bay Refuge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10
Table 2.4 Regional Environmental Justice Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11
Table 2.5 Revenues from Wildlife-associated Recreation by Residents and
Non-residents in New Hampshire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13
Table 2.6 Refuge Staffing and Budget, 2005 to 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14
Table 2.7 Great Bay Refuge’s Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments to the
Town of Newington, 2000 to 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16
Table 2.8 Major Soil Types on Great Bay Refuge from the Soil Survey of
Rockingham County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-18
Table 2.9 Natural Community Types and Associated Habitats on
Great Bay Refuge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-19
Table 2.10 Fish Stocking During Air Force Management of Upper Peverly,
Lower Peverly, and Stubbs Ponds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-24
Table 2.11 Most Common Species Detected During Waterfowl Survey of Stubbs
Pond, 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-29
Table 2.12 Invasive Plant Species on the Great Bay Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-36
Table 2.13 Biological Control of Purple Loosestrife on Great Bay Refuge,
1995 to 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-37
Table 2.14 Relative Abundance of Birds Detected During Breeding Bird Surveys
on Great Bay Refuge from June 1994 to 2007. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-38
Table 2.15 Relative Abundance of Grassland Breeding Birds Detected During
Surveys Conducted on Grassland Management Units from
1999 to 2010 on Great Bay Refuge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-41
Table 2.16 Bats Detected on Great Bay Refuge in 2009 and 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-42
Table 2.17 Fish Species Composition and Abundance in Upper Peverly, Lower
Peverly, and Stubbs Ponds in 1992 and 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-43
Table 2.18 Amphibians and Reptiles Documented on Great Bay Refuge . . . . . . . 2-44
Table 2.19 New Hampshire Fish and Game Management Activities at the
Concord Pine Barrens from 2000 to 2011.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-53
Table 2.20 Captive Rearing of Karner Blue Butterflies for Release onto the
Service’s Concord Pine Barrens Conservation Easement . . . . . . . . 2-54
Table 3.1 Comparison by Alternative of Habitat Types Under Management for
the Great Bay Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
Table 4.1 Existing Context for Impacts Analysis at Great Bay Refuge and
Karner Blue Butterfly Conservation Easement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4
Table A.1 Species and Habitats of Concern Known, or Potentially Occurring, on
Great Bay Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
Table A.2 Species and Habitats of Concern Known, or Potentially Occurring, on
the Karner Blue Butterfly Easement in Concord New Hampshire. . . A-6
Table A.3 Priority Habitat Types and Their Associated Focal Species for
Great Bay Refuge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-7
Table B.1 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Elements for
Great Bay Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-4
Table B.2 Regional Plans and Lists and their Respective Rankings . . . . . . . . . B-10
Table B.3 Priority Habitat Types and Their Associated Focal Species for
Great Bay Refuge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-13
Table E.1 Current Projects in the RONS Database for Great Bay Refuge . . . . . . E-1
Table E.2 Projects Proposed for the RONS Database for
Great Bay Refuge under Alternative B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-2
Table E.3 Projects Proposed for the RONS Database for
Great Bay Refuge under Alternative C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-3
Table E.4 Current Projects in the SAMMS Database for Great Bay Refuge . . . . E-4
Table E.5 Proposed Projects for the SAMMS Database for
Great Bay Refuge under Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-6
Table E.6 Proposed Projects for the SAMMS Database for
Great Bay Refuge under Alternative C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-6
ix
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
List of Maps
Map 1.1 Conservation Lands Surrounding Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge . 1-2
Map 1.2 Karner Blue Butterfly Easement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3
Map 1.3 Service and Partner Conservation Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-14
Map 2.1 Resource Protection Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
Map 2.2 Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15
Map 2.3 Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Existing Natural Vegetation
Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20
Map 2.4 Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Area–July 1952 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-25
Map 2.5 Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Area–October 1962. . . . . . . . . . . 2-26
Map 2.6 Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Area–Circa 1998. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-27
Map 2.7 Existing Trails and Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-49
Map 3.1 New England Cottontail Focus Area (Dover West) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14
Map 3.2 New England Cottontail Rollinsford and Dover East Focus Areas . . . . 3-15
Map 3.3 East Great Bay Focus Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17
List of Tables (cont.)
Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Table of Contents
x
Map 3.4 Hampton–Seabrook–Salisbury Marsh Focus Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18
Map 3.5 Karner Blue Butterfly Focus Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-19
Map 3.6 Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Habitat Management
Alternative A (Current Management) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-22
Map 3.7 Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Public Use Alternative A
(Current Management) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23
Map 3.8 Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Habitat Management
Alternative B (Service-preferred Alternative). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-31
Map 3.9 Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Public Use–Existing and
Proposed Alternative B (Service-preferred Alternative) . . . . . . . . . 3-32
Map 3.10 Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Public Use Facilities and Refuge
Infrastructure Alternative B (Service-preferred Alternative) . . . . . . 3-33
Map 3.11 Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Mapped Eelgrass Beds in the
Vicinity of Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-38
Map 3.12 Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Current Shellfish Beds in the
Vicinity of Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39
Map 3.13 Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Karner Blue Butterfly Easement
Existing and Proposed Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-73
Map 3.14 Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Habitat Management
Alternative C (Emphasis on Natural Processes) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-80
Map 3.15 Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Public Use Alternative C . . . . . . . 3-81
Map D.1 Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-4
Map J.1 Location of Proposed Refuge Headquarters/Visitor Contact Station. . . J-2
Maps (cont.)
USFWS
Chapter 1
Upper Peverly Pond
Purpose of, and Need for, Action
■ Introduction
■ Purpose of, and Need for, Action
■ Service Policies, Legal Mandates, and Other Policies Guiding
Planning Process
■ National and Regional Plans and Conservation Initiatives
■ Refuge Purposes and Land Acquisition History
■ Refuge Vision Statement
■ Refuge Goals
■ The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
■ Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
Chapter 1. Purpose of, and Need for, Action 1-1
Introduction
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, we, our) established Great Bay
National Wildlife Refuge (Great Bay Refuge, the refuge) in 1992. It is located in
the town of Newington in southeastern New Hampshire, on the eastern shore
of the tidally influenced Great Bay Estuary. This 1,103-acre refuge includes 2
miles of rocky shoreline and is the largest parcel of protected land on the estuary
(map 1.1). Great Bay Refuge was established to protect the natural diversity of
fish, wildlife, and plants within its boundaries; protect federally listed species;
preserve and enhance water quality and aquatic habitats; and fulfill the U.S.’s
international treaty obligations relating to fish and wildlife resources. In the
three decades prior to refuge establishment, the refuge lands were part of the
former Pease U.S. Air Force (Air Force) Base. Despite this intensive land use,
and its earlier use as a farm, the refuge has a rich diversity of habitat types
including oak-hickory forests, grasslands, shrub thickets, freshwater and
saltwater wetlands, and open water.
Great Bay Refuge also includes a 29-acre conservation easement in remnant
pine barrens along the Merrimack River in Concord, New Hampshire. The
easement lies approximately 45 miles west of the refuge and abuts the Concord
Airport. The pine barrens on easement lands are managed for the federally
listed endangered Karner blue butterfly. The easement is part of a fragmented,
but important, complex of remnant pine barrens that supports rare moths and
butterflies. The habitat primarily consists of a mix of open pitch pine-scrub, pine-hardwood,
and other shrubland (map 1.2).
This draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and the accompanying
Environmental Assessment (EA) combines two documents required by
Federal law:
■ A CCP, required by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of
1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997 (Pub. L. 105-57; 111 Stat. 1253) (Refuge Improvement Act)
■ An EA, required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969
(42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., 83 Stat. 852)
We propose to develop a CCP for the refuge that, in our professional judgment,
best
■ achieves the purposes, goals, and vision of the refuge;
■ contributes to the National Wildlife Refuge System’s (Refuge System) mission;
■ adheres to Service’s policies and other mandates;
■ addresses key issues; 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 and describes our current refuge
programs.
Introduction
Purpose of, and Need
for, Action
Purpose of, and Need for, Action Map 1.1
Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan an 1-2 d Environmental Assessment
Map 1.2 Purpose of, and Need for, Action
Chapter 1. Purpose of, and Need for, Action 1-3
Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan an 1-4 d Environmental Assessment
Purpose of, and Need for, Action
A CCP’s purpose is to provide strategic management direction on a refuge for the
next 15 years by
■ providing a clear statement of desired future conditions for habitat, wildlife,
visitor services, staffing, and facilities;
■ providing state agencies, refuge neighbors, visitors, and partners with a clear
explanation of the reasons for management actions;
■ ensuring refuge management reflects the policies and goals of the Refuge
System and legal mandates;
■ ensuring the “compatibility” of current and future public use;
■ providing long-term continuity and direction for refuge management; and
■ providing direction for staffing, operations, maintenance, and annual budget
requests.
There are many reasons the refuge presently needs a CCP. First, Great Bay
Refuge lacks a master plan to fulfill its obligations especially as administrative,
environmental, economic, and social conditions have changed since the refuge
was first established in 1992. Prior to 2005, the refuge employed an onsite refuge
manager and an administrative assistant. In 2006, the Service made a decision
to destaff Great Bay Refuge after budget cuts led to a new regional strategic
staffing plan. Great Bay Refuge and the Karner blue butterfly conservation
easement are now administered by the refuge manager at Parker River National
Wildlife Refuge in Newburyport, Massachusetts.
Second, in the last few decades, development has increased around the refuge. In
response, land protection efforts have also increased. The refuge is an integral
part of the network of conserved lands throughout the region. Great Bay Refuge
has the potential to provide opportunities for environmental education and
outreach that have not yet been fully realized. This CCP is a valuable tool to help
us articulate our management priorities to the State of New Hampshire (State)
natural resource agencies, refuge partners, other conservation organizations,
local communities, and the public. Through this CCP, we hope that we will
strengthen our existing partnerships, and forge new ones, to help achieve our
refuge purposes and goals and support the Refuge System mission.
Third, the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (Refuge
Improvement Act) requires that all national wildlife refuges have a CCP in place
by 2012 to help fulfill the mission of the Refuge System.
Finally, the CCP is needed to address key issues identified through the planning
process by the public, partners, other agencies, and refuge staff. A primary
concern is those issues that are adversely affecting the populations and habitats
of fish, wildlife, and plants within the refuge. These key issues are described in
detail below in the section titled, “Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities.”
Following the public review of this draft CCP/EA, the Service’s Northeast
Regional Director will decide on the components of a final CCP to guide refuge
management decisions over the next 15 years. This CCP/EA evaluates and
compares three alternatives for managing Great Bay Refuge and the Karner
blue butterfly conservation easement, and their effects on key biological,
physical, social, and cultural resources: Alternative A, “Current Management,”
Alternative B, “Habitat Diversity and Focal Species Emphasis,” and
Chapter 1. Purpose of, and Need for, Action 1-5
Purpose of, and Need for, Action
Alternative C, “Emphasis on Natural Processes.”Alternative B represents the
proposed action and the Service-preferred alternative. It was selected as the
Service-preferred alternative because the CCP planning team believes it best
achieves refuge purposes, vision, and goals; contributes to the Refuge System
mission; addresses the issues and relevant mandates; and is consistent with
sound principles of fish and wildlife management.
Chapter 1 explains the purpose of, and need for, preparing a CCP/EA, and sets
the stage for the 4 subsequent chapters and 10 appendixes. Specifically, 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 as we developed the plan.
Chapter 2, “Affected Environment,” describes the refuge’s physical, biological,
and human environments.
Chapter 3, “Alternatives, Including the Service-preferred Alternative,” presents
three management alternatives for Great Bay Refuge, and two management
alternatives for the Karner blue butterfly conservation easement. Each
alternative presents a set of objectives and array of strategies for meeting refuge
goals and addressing public issues. It also describes the activities that we expect
to occur regardless of the alternative selected for the final CCP.
Chapter 4, “Environmental Consequences,” assesses the environmental
consequences of implementing each of the management alternatives. It predicts
the foreseeable benefits and consequences affecting the socioeconomic, physical,
cultural, and biological environments described in chapter 2.
Chapter 5, “Consultation and Coordination,” summarizes how we involved the
public and our partners in the planning process, and credits the contributors to
this plan. Public and partner involvement is vital for the future management of
this refuge and all national wildlife refuges.
Ten appendixes, a glossary with a list of acronyms and species scientific names,
and a bibliography provide additional documentation and references to support
our narratives and analysis. The appendixes include:
■ Appendix A: Species and Habitats of Concern Known, or Potentially
Occurring, on Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge and Karner Blue Butterfly
Easement
■ Appendix B: Process for Establishing Focal Species and Priority Habitats
■ Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations
Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan an 1-6 d Environmental Assessment
Purpose of, and Need for, Action
■ Appendix D: Refuge Operations Needs System (RONS) and Service Asset
Maintenance Management System (SAMMS)
■ Appendix E: Wilderness Review
■ Appendix F: Staffing Charts
■ Appendix G: Fire Management Program Guidance
■ Appendix H: Forest Health Assessment
■ Appendix I: Contaminants Review of Peverly Stream System
■ Appendix J: Refuge Headquarters/Visitor Contact Station Proposed Under
Alternatives A and B
Woodman Point looking west
USFWS
Chapter 1. Purpose of, and Need for, Action 1-7
Service Policies, Legal Mandates, and Other Policies Guiding the Planning Process
This section presents highlights of Service policy, legal mandates and
regulations, and existing resource plans and conservation initiatives that directly
influenced development of this draft CCP/EA.
The Service, part of the Department of the Interior (Department), administers
the Refuge System. The mission of the Service 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 the following
national natural resources: migratory birds, federally listed endangered or
threatened species, migratory and interjurisdictional fish, wetlands, certain
marine mammals, and national wildlife refuges. The Service also enforces
Federal wildlife laws and international treaties on importing and exporting
wildlife, assists states with their fish and wildlife programs, and helps other
countries develop conservation programs.
The Service Manual, available online at: http://www.fws.gov/policy/manuals
(accessed May 2011), 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.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html (accessed May 2011).
The Refuge System is the world’s largest network of public lands and waters
set aside specifically for conserving wildlife and protecting ecosystems. From
its inception in 1903, the Refuge System has grown to over 150 million acres,
encompassing more than 550 national wildlife refuges and other units of the
Refuge System, plus 37 wetland management districts. More than 40 million
visitors annually hunt, fish, observe and photograph wildlife, or participate in
environmental education and interpretive activities on these refuges.
The mission of the Refuge System is:
“To administer a national network of lands and waters for the
conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the
fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United
States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”
—National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
The fundamental focus of the Refuge System is wildlife conservation. The goals
of the Refuge System are to
■ fulfill our statutory duty to achieve refuge purposes and further the Refuge
System mission;
■ conserve, restore where appropriate, and enhance all species of fish, wildlife,
and plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered;
Service Policies, Legal
Mandates, and Other
Policies Guiding the
Planning Process
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
The National Wildlife
Refuge System
Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan an 1-8 d Environmental Assessment
Service Policies, Legal Mandates, and Other Policies Guiding the Planning Process
■ perpetuate migratory bird, interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal
populations;
■ conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants;
■ conserve and restore, where appropriate, representative ecosystems of the
United States, including the ecological processes characteristic of those
ecosystems; and
■ foster understanding and instill appreciation of fish, wildlife, and plants,
and their conservation, by providing the public with safe, high-quality, and
compatible wildlife-dependent public uses including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation and photography, environmental education, and interpretation.
Refuge Planning and Management Guidance
This Service policy (602 FW 1, 2, 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
■ 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 applicable laws, mandates, and policies.
Service planning policy
provides step-by-step directions
and identifies the minimum
requirements for developing
all CCPs. Among them, we
are to review any existing
special designation areas such
as Wilderness Areas and Wild
and Scenic Rivers designations,
address the potential for any
new special designations,
conduct a wilderness review,
and incorporate a summary of
that review into each CCP (602
FW 3). Appendix D summarizes
the results of our wilderness review. Based on our findings, Great Bay Refuge
does not meet the minimum requirement for wilderness, and we are not
recommending it for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System.
At this time, we do not see the potential for any other special designations on
the refuge.
Policy on Maintaining Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental
Health
Service policy (601 FW 3) provides guidance on maintaining and 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. The policy provides the following definitions:
Raccoon
Dave Menke/USFWS
Chapter 1. Purpose of, and Need for, Action 1-9
Service Policies, Legal Mandates, and Other Policies Guiding the Planning Process
■ Biological diversity is the “variety of life and its processes, including the
variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, and
communities and ecosystems in which they occur.”
■ Biological integrity is the “biotic composition, structure, and functioning at
genetic, organism, and community levels comparable with historic conditions,
including the natural biological processes that shape genomes, organisms, and
communities.”
■ Environmental health is the “composition, structure, and functioning of soil,
water, air, and other abiotic features comparable with historic conditions,
including the natural abiotic processes that shape the environment.”
The policy provides refuge managers with a process for evaluating the best
management direction to prevent additional degradation of environmental
conditions and restore lost or severely degraded components of the environment.
It also provides guidelines for dealing with external threats to the biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health of a refuge and its ecosystem.
Habitat Management Planning
In collaboration with other refuges in the region, Great Bay Refuge staff prepared
a draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP) in 2006 based on the guidelines set
out in the Service’s HMP policy (620 FW 1). The HMP describes the process
that the refuge used to identify priority resources of concern and to set habitat
management priorities to benefit those resources. The HMP includes a set of
goals, objectives, and strategies for habitat management on the refuge and
provides the biological foundation for this CCP. Appendix A lists the species of
conservation concern at Great Bay Refuge identified during the HMP process.
Appendix B details the process used to select these species of concern. A final
HMP will be developed after the completion of the CCP.
Policy on the 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 all visitors can enjoy its lands and waters.
This Service policy (603 FW 1) provides a national framework for determining
appropriate refuge uses to prevent or eliminate those that should not occur in
the Refuge System. It describes the initial decision process the refuge manager
follows when first considering whether to allow a proposed use on a refuge. An
appropriate use must meet at least one of the following four conditions:
(1) The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use, as identifi ed in the
Improvement Act.
(2) The use contributes to fulfi lling the refuge purpose(s), the Refuge System
mission, or goals or objectives described in a refuge management plan
approved after October 9, 1997, the date the Improvement Act became law.
(3) The use involves the take of fi sh or wildlife under state regulations.
(4) The use has been found to be appropriate after concluding a specifi ed fi ndings
process using the 10 specifi c criteria included in the policy.
Appendix C includes the findings of appropriateness for Great Bay Refuge.
You may view the appropriateness policy on the Web at: http://www.fws.gov/
policy/603fw1.html (accessed May 2011).
Policy on Compatibility
This Service policy (603 FW 2) complements the appropriateness policy and
provides guidance on how to prepare a compatibility determination. The refuge
Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan an 1-10 d Environmental Assessment
Service Policies, Legal Mandates, and Other Policies Guiding the Planning Process
manager first must find a use appropriate before undertaking a review of that use
to determine if it compatible. According to this policy, 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.” If the proposed use is found
not appropriate, a compatibility determination is unnecessary and the use is not
allowed. If the refuge manager finds a use appropriate, it is further evaluated
through a compatibility determination. Other guidance in that chapter 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.
■ The act defines six wildlife-dependent uses that are to receive enhanced
consideration on refuges: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography,
environmental education, and interpretation.
■ The refuge manager may authorize these six priority uses on a refuge when
they are compatible and consistent with public safety.
■ When the refuge manager publishes a compatibility determination, it will
specify 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 a 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 (603 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.
Appendix C includes the draft compatibility determinations for Great Bay
Refuge.
Policy on Wildlife-dependent Public Uses
This Service policy (605 FW 1) presents specific guidance about wildlife-dependent
recreation programs within the Refuge System. We develop our
wildlife-dependent recreation programs in consultation with state fish and
wildlife agencies and stakeholder input based on the following criteria:
■ Promotes safety of participants, other visitors, and facilities
■ Promotes compliance with applicable laws and regulations and responsible
behavior
■ Minimizes or eliminates conflict with fish and wildlife population or habitat
goals or objectives in an approved plan
■ Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with other compatible wildlife-dependent
recreation
■ Minimizes conflicts with neighboring landowners
■ Promotes accessibility and availability to a broad spectrum of the American
people
■ Promotes resource stewardship and conservation
Chapter 1. Purpose of, and Need for, Action 1-11
Service Policies, Legal Mandates, and Other Policies Guiding the Planning Process
■ Promotes public understanding and increases public appreciation of America’s
natural resources and our role in managing and conserving these resources
■ Provides reliable/reasonable opportunities to experience wildlife
■ Uses facilities that are accessible to people and blend into the natural setting
■ Uses visitor satisfaction to help to define and evaluate programs
Other Mandates
While Service and Refuge System policies and each refuge’s purpose(s) provide
the foundation for management, national wildlife refuges are administered
consistent with a variety of other Federal laws, executive orders, treaties,
interstate compacts, and regulations on the conservation and protection of
natural and cultural resources. The “Digest of Federal Resource Laws of
Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service” lists them and can be accessed at:
http://www.fws.gov/laws/Lawsdigest.html (accessed August 2011).
Chapter 4, “Environmental Consequences,” specifically evaluates compliance
with the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). This draft CCP/EA is written to comply with NEPA.
Historic Resources
Federal laws 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 identify the refuge’s archaeological and cultural values.
The following four Federal laws also cover historic and archaeological resources
on national wildlife refuges:
■ The Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) (16 U.S.C. § 470aa–470ll;
Pub.L. 96–95), approved October 31, 1979 (93 Stat.721). ARPA establishes
detailed requirements for issuance of permits for any excavation for, or
removal of, archaeological resources from Federal or Native American lands.
It also establishes civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized excavation,
removal, or damage of those resources; for any trafficking in those resources
removed from Federal or Native American land in violation of any provision
of Federal law; and for interstate and foreign commerce in such resources
acquired, transported, or received in violation of any state or local law.
■ The Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (AHPA) (16 U.S.C. §
469–469c; Pub.L. 86–523), approved June 27, 1960 (74 Stat. 220), as amended
by Pub.L. 93–291 approved May 24, 1974 (88 Stat. 174). APHA carries out the
policy established by the Historic Sites Act (see below). It directs Federal
agencies to notify the Secretary of the Interior whenever they find that a
Federal or federally assisted licensed or permitted project may cause the loss
or destruction of significant scientific, prehistoric, or archaeological data. The
act authorizes the use of appropriated, donated, or transferred funds for the
recovery, protection, and preservation of that data.
■ The Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. § 461–462,
464–467; 49 Stat. 666) of August 21, 1935, popularly known as the Historic
Sites Act, as amended by Pub.L. 89–249, approved October 9, 1965 (79 Stat.
971). This Historic Sites Act declares it a national policy to preserve historic
sites and objects of national significance, including those located on refuges. It
provides procedures for designating, acquiring, administering, and protecting
these sites and objects. Among other things, National Historic and Natural
Landmarks are designated under the authority of this act.
Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan an 1-12 d Environmental Assessment
National and Regional Plans and Conservation Initiatives
■ The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. § 470–470b,
470c–470n), Pub.L. 89–665, approved October 15, 1966 (80 Stat. 915), and
repeatedly amended. The NHPA provides for the preservation of significant
historical features (buildings, objects, and sites) through a grant-in-aid
program to the states. It establishes the National Register of Historic
Places (National Register) and a program of matching grants under the
existing National Trust for Historic Preservation (16 U.S.C. § 468–468d).
This act establishes an Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, which
became a permanent, independent agency in Pub.L. 94–422, approved
September 28, 1976 (90 Stat. 1319). The act created the Historic Preservation
Fund. It directs Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their
actions on items or sites listed or eligible for listing on the National Register.
The Margeson-Hawkridge-Loomis Estate (Margeson Estate) on Great Bay
Refuge is on the National Register.
The Service also owns and cares for museum properties. The most common are
archaeological, zoological, and botanical collections, and historical photographs,
objects, and art. Each refuge maintains an inventory of its museum property.
Our regional museum property coordinator in Hadley, Massachusetts, guides
the refuges in caring for that property, and helps us comply with the Native
American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act and Federal regulations
governing Federal archaeological collections. Our program ensures that those
collections will remain available to the public for learning and research.
To the extent possible, a CCP assists in meeting the conservation goals
established in existing national and regional conservation plans, state fish and
wildlife conservation plans, and other landscape-scale plans covering the same
watershed or ecosystem in which the refuge resides. The following plans were
consulted in the development of this draft CCP.
The 1988 amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act mandates
the Service to “identify species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory
nongame birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become
candidates for listing under ESA. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 (BCC)
is the most recent effort to carry out this mandate (USFWS 2008). The overall
goal of this report is to accurately identify the migratory and nonmigratory bird
species, beyond those already federally listed as threatened or endangered, that
represent our highest conservation priorities.
BCC 2008 encompasses three distinct geographic scales—North American
Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs),
Service Regions, and National���and is primarily derived from three major bird
conservation plans: the Partners in Flight (PIF) North American Landbird
Conservation Plan, the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, and the North
American Waterbird Conservation Plan. All three bird conservation plans
identify species of concern based on several factors, including population trends,
threats, distribution, abundance, and relative density.
The goal of the BCC 2008 report is to encourage 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/
NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/BCC2008/BCC2008.pdf (accessed
May 2011). These birds of conservation concern are incorporated into
Appendix A, “Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern on Great Bay
Refuge.”
National and Regional
Plans and Conservation
Initiatives
Birds of Conservation
Concern 2008 Report
Chapter 1. Purpose of, and Need for, Action 1-13
National and Regional Plans and Conservation Initiatives
The North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) brings together the
individual landbird, shorebird, waterbird, and waterfowl plans described below
into a coordinated effort to protect and restore all native bird populations and
their habitats in North America. It uses BCRs to guide landscape-scale, science-based
approaches to conserving birds and their habitats. Visit: http://www.nabci-us.
org/ (accessed May 2011) for more information on NABCI.
Great Bay Refuge is located in the New England/Mid-Atlantic Coast BCR (BCR
30). BCR 30 has the densest human population of any region in the country
(http://www.nabci-us.org/bcr30.htm [accessed May 2011]) (map 1.3). A draft
BCR 30 plan was developed in September 2002 and a meeting in December
2004 at Cape May, New Jersey produced a list of priority bird species and draft
actions. An updated BCR 30 draft plan was developed in 2006 (Steincamp 2006,
draft). We used these documents, as well as information in the four additional
bird conservation plans described below, to identify focal species and habitat
management goals and objectives for the refuge.
Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation Plans
In 1990, PIF was conceived as a voluntary, international coalition of government
agencies, conservation organizations, academic institutions, private industry, and
other citizens dedicated to reversing the population declines of bird species and
“keeping common birds common.” The foundation of PIF’s long-term strategy for
landbird conservation is a series of scientifically and geographically based bird
conservation plans.
Initially, PIF developed draft conservation plans within “physiographic areas.”
PIF developed a set of science-based rules to evaluate the conservation status of
all bird species using a species’ population size, distribution, population trend,
threats, and regional abundance to objectively identify regional and continental
conservation priorities. These rules were adapted and are now being used at
the BCR level to identify bird conservation priorities and opportunities. Great
Bay Refuge lies within PIF Area 09–Southern New England (Dettmers and
Rosenberg 2000). The Karner blue butterfly conservation easement is within PIF
Area 27–Northern New England (Hodgman and Rosenberg 2000) (map 1.3).
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan and Northern Atlantic Regional
Shorebird Plan
The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (Brown et al. 2001) is a partnership across
the United States to ensure that stable and self-sustaining populations of all
shorebird species are restored and protected. Collaborators include local, state,
and Federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, researchers,
educators, and policymakers. The plan was closely coordinated with North
American Waterfowl Management Plan and Joint Venture staff, as well as the
PIF and North American Waterbird Plan teams, as they concurrently developed
their revised national plans. These experts helped set conservation goals for each
region of the country, identify critical habitat and research needs, and propose
education and outreach programs to increase awareness of shorebirds and the
threats they face.
The U.S. Shorebird Plan identified three primary objectives:
■ Develop a standardized, scientifically sound system for monitoring and
studying shorebird populations that will provide practical information to
researchers and land managers for shorebird habitat conservation.
■ Identify the principles and practices upon which local, regional, and national
management plans can effectively integrate shorebird habitat conservation
with multiple species strategies.
North American Bird
Conservation Initiative
Baltimore oriole
Les Brooks
Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan an 1-14 d Environmental Assessment
National and Regional Plans and Conservation Initiatives Map 1.3
Chapter 1. Purpose of, and Need for, Action 1-15
National and Regional Plans and Conservation Initiatives
■ Design an integrated strategy for increasing public awareness and information
concerning wetlands and shorebirds.
Regional plans, including the North Atlantic Regional Shorebird Plan, were
developed as part of the overall strategy (Clark and Niles 2000). We used both
the U.S. and North Atlantic Regional Shorebird Plans to develop the species of
concern list (appendix A) and in considering the value of the refuge to migrating
shorebirds.
The national plan can be accessed at: http://www.fws.gov/shorebirdplan/
USShorebird.htm (accessed May 2011) and the regional plan at: http://www.fws.
gov/shorebirdplan/regionalshorebird/regionalplans.htm (accessed May 2011).
North American Waterbird Conservation Plan
This conservation plan for waterbirds is an independent partnership among
individuals and institutions with interest and responsibility for conserving
waterbirds and their habitats. The primary goal of the plan is to ensure that the
distribution, diversity, and abundance of populations and habitats of breeding,
migratory, and nonbreeding waterbirds are sustained or restored throughout the
lands and waters of North America, Central America, and the Caribbean. The
plan provides a framework for conserving and managing colonially nesting water-dependent
birds and promotes continentwide planning and monitoring, national-state-
provincial conservation action, regional coordination, and local habitat
protection and management (Kushlan et al. 2002). You can access the plan online
at: http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/nacwcp/nawcp.html (accessed May 2011).
A partnership of organizations and individuals working to facilitate waterbird
conservation in the Mid-Atlantic, New England, and Maritimes (MANEM)
region of the U.S. and Canada has developed a regional waterbird conservation
plan. Over 200 partners, comprising the MANEM Waterbird Working Group,
have compiled and interpreted technical information on the region’s waterbird
populations and habitats, assessed conservation status of these natural resources,
developed strategies to ensure the persistence of sustainable waterbird
populations in the region, and identified near-term priorities. MANEM partners
include wildlife managers, scientists, policymakers, educators, and funders.
The MANEM region consists of BCR 30 (New England/Mid-Atlantic Coast),
BCR 14 (Atlantic Northern Forest), and Pelagic Bird Conservation Regions
78 (Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf) and 79 (Scotian Shelf). The MANEM
Waterbird Conservation Plan is being implemented within the context and
framework of the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (http://www.
waterbirdconservation.org [accessed May 2011]).
Seventy-four waterbird species use habitats in MANEM for breeding, migrating,
and wintering. Avian families include loons, grebes, shearwaters, storm-petrels,
boobies, pelicans, cormorants, herons, ibises, rails, gulls, terns, skuas, jaegers,
and alcids. Partners in 4 subregions of MANEM selected 43 focal species for
immediate conservation action. In addition, 55 of MANEM’s waterbirds are
identified in state wildlife action plans as Species of Greatest Conservation Need.
You can access information on MANEM Regional planning at: http://www.fws.
gov/birds/waterbirds/MANEM/ (accessed May 2011).
We used these waterbird plans to help develop objectives and strategies for
goals 1 and 2, and to create Appendix A, “Species and Habitats of Concern at
Great Bay Refuge.”
Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan an 1-16 d Environmental Assessment
National and Regional Plans and Conservation Initiatives
North American Waterfowl Management Plan: Atlantic Coast Joint Venture
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), signed by the
U.S. and Canada in 1986 and by Mexico in 1994, provides a strategy to protect
North America’s remaining wetlands and to conserve waterfowl populations
through habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement (USFWS and CWS
1986). The plan was updated in both 1998 and 2004 with an emphasis on
strengthening its biological foundation, using a landscape planning approach,
and expanding partnerships (USFWS and CWS 2004). Implementation of this
plan is accomplished at the regional level within 16 joint venture areas in the U.S.
and Canada. Partnerships involve Federal, state, and local governments; Tribal
nations; local businesses; conservation organizations; and individual citizens for
the purpose of protecting habitat. By 2004, NAWMP partners had invested more
than $3.2 billion to protect, restore, or enhance more than 13.1 million acres of
habitat. More information on the NAWMP is available at: http://www.fws.gov/
birdhabitat/nawmp/nawmphp.htm (accessed May 2011).
Great Bay Refuge lies within the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (ACJV), one of
the original joint ventures formed under the NAWMP. The ACJV was initially
focused on protecting and restoring habitat for the American black duck
and other waterfowl species in the Atlantic Coast region of the U.S. While
maintaining this strong focus on waterfowl, the ACJV mission has evolved
to include the conservation of habitats for all birds. The ACJV is working on
integrated planning efforts in eight BCRs. Focus areas, which are specific,
important geographic areas with joint venture regions, were identified and
mapped for waterfowl and are being developed for other migratory birds within
each BCR. These focus areas are discrete and distinguishable habitats or habitat
complexes that are regionally important for one or more priority waterfowl
species during one or more life history stages.
The Great Bay Estuary is a major wintering area for American black duck,
and supports over 80 percent of all waterfowl populations wintering in New
Hampshire. The area has been recognized as a waterfowl focus area in the ACJV
Waterfowl Implementation Plan. Visit: http://www.acjv.org (accessed May 2011)
for more information on the ACJV.
This report provides an overview of the conservation status of New Hampshire’s
bird species, including their population trends, the major threats they face, and
proposed strategies for their conservation (Hunt 2009). Overall, the report finds
that nearly 47 percent of the 186 birds species in New Hampshire are declining,
particularly grassland, shrubland, and ground-nesting forest species. For an
additional 38 percent of species, too little information exists to determine trends.
The major threats to the conservation of New Hampshire’s birds identified in
the report include forest fragmentation; conversion of natural habitats to urban,
commercial, and residential development; loss of late successional forest; climate
change; and impacts to breeding, migration, and wintering habitats outside of
the region. To counteract declining trends and reduce these threats, the report
suggests six major strategies:
■ Improve and enhance monitoring of species of concern.
■ Maintain intact forests.
■ Prioritize conservation of early successional habitats.
■ Protect sensitive habitats by minimizing human disturbances.
■ Work at a regional scale.
We used this report to help create Appendix A, “Species and Habitats of
Conservation Concern at Great Bay Refuge.”
The State of New
Hampshire’s Birds: 2009
Chapter 1. Purpose of, and Need for, Action 1-17
National and Regional Plans and Conservation Initiatives
The Karner blue butterfly formerly occurred in a band extending across 12
states from Minnesota to Maine, as well as Ontario, Canada. Currently, the
species only occurs in seven states: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan,
New York, New Hampshire, and Ohio. Currently, Wisconsin and Michigan
support the greatest number of Karner blue butterflies and habitat sites. The
majority of the populations in the remaining states are small and several are
at risk of extripation from habitat degradation or loss. Based on the decline of
the Karner blue butterfly across its historic range, it was listed as federally
endangered in 1992. Since listing, two populations have been extirpated and are
being reintroduced to Concord, New Hampshire, and West Gary, Indiana. A third
population is being reintroduced to Ohio (USFWS 2003).
The final recovery plan for the species was prepared in September 2003 (USFWS
2003). The objective of the recovery plan is to restore viable metapopulations
of Karner blue butterflies across the species extant range so that it can be
reclassified from federally endangered to threatened. The long-range goal is to
remove it from the Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants.
An update to the recovery plan was added in February 2011 to include a new
potential recovery unit, the Michigan Oak Openings Unit. Both the 2003 plan and
its update can be accessed at: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/insects/
kbb/index.html (accessed May 2011).
Additional Background on the Karner Blue Butterfly
The Karner blue butterfly is dependent on wild lupine — its only known larval
food plant —and on nectar plants. These plants historically occurred in savanna
and barrens habitats typified by dry sandy soils, and now occur in remnants of
these habitats. The primary factor limiting Karner blue butterfly recovery is loss
of habitat due to development and increased forest canopy closure due to natural
succession.
By 2003, no native Karner blue butterfly populations remained in New England.
The last native New England population occurred in the Concord pine barrens
in Concord, New Hampshire, and was extirpated in 2000. This last population,
which existed in a power line right-of-way and along the grassy safeways of the
Concord Airport Industrial Park, had declined from 3,700 estimated butterflies
in 1983, to 219 butterflies in 1991, and to less than 50 in 1994. This decline
made this site’s population at extreme risk for extinction (Peteroy 1998). A
reintroduction program was started in 2001 in Concord with a donor population
from the Saratoga Airport in New York. For 5 years in a row (2005 to 2009)
biologists have observed and documented Karner blue butterflies surviving on
their own in the wild at the Concord pine barrens. The Karner blue butterfly
conservation easement, administered by Great Bay Refuge, is central to this
success (see discussion in this chapter under the section “Refuge Purposes and
Land Acquisition History). New Hampshire Fish and Game (NHFG) coordinates
habitat management, lupine propagation and planting, and captive rearing and
introduction of the Karner blue butterfly on the easement.
Great Bay Refuge is within the historic range of New England’s only native
rabbit species, the New England cottontail. The New England cottontail is listed
as endangered in the State of New Hampshire and is also currently a candidate
species for listing on the Federal list of threatened and endangered species due
to population decline. Candidate species are plant and animal species for which
the Service has sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to
support a proposal to list as endangered or threatened, but that have yet to be
listed due to higher priorities. Since candidate species are not yet listed, there
is still the opportunity that proactive conservation actions can prevent the need
for listing.
Karner Blue Butterfly
Recovery Plan
New England Cottontail
Spotlight Action Plan
Phil Delphey/USFWS
Karner blue butterfly
Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan an 1-18 d Environmental Assessment
National and Regional Plans and Conservation Initiatives
The New England Cottontail Spotlight Action Plan identifies the threats to New
England cottontails, goals and actions to reduce and mitigate these threats,
and measures to monitor the success of the plan (USFWS 2009). The plan
identifies habitat fragmentation and habitat loss as the major threats to New
England cottontail recovery. The species is dependent upon early successional
habitats, such as old fields, shrub thickets, young regenerating forests, and
other shrubby areas. These types of early successional habitats are currently
declining throughout New England as they naturally succeed to forest. Human
development has also eliminated and fragmented habitat for the New England
cottontail. Although there are currently no known occurrences of New England
cottontails on the refuge, there are opportunities on the refuge to create and
maintain the early successional habitats that benefit the species, as well as other
shrub-dependent wildlife (Arbuthnot 2008).
The Spotlight Action Plan is available online at: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/
endangered/pdf/NE%20Cottontail%20SSAP.pdf (accessed May 2011).
The Service’s Fisheries Program is committed to working with partners to
■ protect the health of aquatic habitats;
■ restore fish and other aquatic resources; and
■ provide opportunities to enjoy the many benefits of healthy aquatic resources.
In the Service’s Northeast Region, fishery management offices and national fish
hatcheries work with states and other partners to restore and protect a variety of
fish and other aquatic species. The Serivce’s Fisheries Programs’ primary focus
is on maintaining healthy, self-sustaining populations of coastal, anadromous,
and interjurisdictional fish, as well as other threatened and endangered aquatic
animal species.
In 2002, the Fisheries Program completed a strategic vision document:
“Conserving America’s Fisheries, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fisheries
Program Vision for the Future” (vision). This vision document includes goals,
objectives, and action items on a national scale. The Regional Fisheries Program
Strategic Plan is an extension of the national vision document and describes
more specifically the tactics to be implemented by the Northeast Region to
fulfill the goals and objectives identified in the vision. The current strategic plan
covers 2009 to 2013 and can be viewed at: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/fisheries/
(accessed May 2011) (USFWS 2009a).
In addition to the strategic plan, the Fisheries Program also identified and
ranked the level of conservation concern of fish and other aquatic species by
hydrologic unit. We used this ranking and have consulted with the Fisheries
Program staff in developing aquatic objectives and strategies under goal 2, and
in creating Appendix A, “Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern on Great
Bay Refuge.”
In July 2007, the Service issued a final ruling to officially remove the bald eagle
from the Federal list of endangered and threatened species due to its successful
recovery throughout its range in the lower 48 States. The bald eagle continues
to be protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) and
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The Service developed the National
Bald Eagle Management Guidelines to advise landowners, land managers, and
others who share public and private lands with bald eagles, when and under
what circumstances the protective provisions of the Eagle Act may apply to their
activities (USFWS 2007).
U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service Fisheries Program,
Northeast Region Strategic
Plan 2009–2013
North American Bald Eagle
Management Guidelines
Chapter 1. Purpose of, and Need for, Action 1-19
National and Regional Plans and Conservation Initiatives
These guidelines are intended to help people minimize such impacts to bald
eagles, particularly where they may constitute “disturbance,” which is prohibited
by the Eagle Act. The guidelines are intended to
(1) publicize the provisions of the Eagle Act that continue to protect bald eagles, in
order to reduce the possibility that people will violate the law;
(2) advise landowners, land managers, and the general public of the potential for
various human activities to disturb bald eagles; and
(3) encourage additional nonbinding land management practices that benefi t bald
eagles.
The document is intended primarily as a tool for landowners and planners who
seek information and recommendations regarding how to avoid disturbing bald
eagles. You can view these management guidelines at: http://www.fws.gov/pacific/
eagle/NationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf (accessed May 2011).
We referred to these guidelines as we developed management objectives and
strategies for bald eagles.
In 2006, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Society for the Protection of New
Hampshire Forests (SPNHF), and the Rockingham and Strafford Regional
Planning Commissions published The Land Conservation Plan for New
Hampshire’s Coastal Watersheds (Coastal Plan) (Zankel et al. 2006). New
Hampshire’s coastal watersheds span 990 square miles (approximately 633,000
acres) and 46 towns. The plan identified 75 conservation focus areas that
comprise over 190,000 acres of the coastal watersheds that are of exceptional
significance for living resources and water quality.
Each conservation focus area is comprised of a core area that contains the
primary natural features and habitat for which the focus area was identified.
Some focus areas also include a “supporting natural landscape,” which is
comprised of natural lands that helps safeguard the core area while also
providing habitat for many common species.
A portion of Great Bay Refuge is located within the Fabyan Point Conservation
Focus Area. This area was included as a focus area in the coastal plan for the
following ecological features:
■ Estuarine shoreline along Great Bay
■ Presence of tidal rivers, including Peverly Brook
■ Extensive salt marsh
■ Presence of rare plants and animals: large bur-reed, salt marsh sparrow,
osprey, and purple martin
■ Significant wildlife habitats: grassland, marsh
■ Exemplary natural community: mesic Appalachian oak-hickory forest
■ Presence of prime farmland soils
In 2002, Congress created the State Wildlife Grant Program (SWG), and
appropriated $80 million in state grants. The purpose of the program is to help
state and Tribal fish and wildlife agencies conserve fish and wildlife species
The Land Conservation
Plan for New Hampshire��s
Coastal Watersheds
New Hampshire Wildlife
Action Plan
Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan an 1-20 d Environmental Assessment
National and Regional Plans and Conservation Initiatives
of greatest conservation need. The funds appropriated under the program are
allocated to each state according to a formula that takes into account its size and
population.
To be eligible for additional Federal grants, and to satisfy the requirements for
participating in the SWG program, each state was charged with developing a
statewide “Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy” and submitting it
to the National Advisory Acceptance Team by October 1, 2005. Each plan must
address eight required elements and identify and focus on “species of greatest
conservation need.” Each plan must also address the “full array” of wildlife and
wildlife-related issues, and how to “keep common species common.”
In response to that charge, NHFG, with support from partners, developed the
“New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan” (NHWAP) (NHFG 2005). The NHFG
is the chief agency responsible for the implementation and revision of the
NHWAP. The plan creates a vision for conserving New Hampshire’s wildlife
and encourages other states, Federal agencies, and conservation partners to
think strategically about their individual and coordinated roles in prioritizing
conservation.
The NHWAP helps supplement the information we gathered on species and
habitat occurrences and their distribution in our area analysis, and helps us
identify conservation threats and management strategies for species and habitats
of conservation concern in the CCP. The development of this plan involved
invaluable input from experts, partners, and the public. We used the NHWAP
in developing our list of species of concern in appendix A, and the management
objectives and strategies for goals 1through 3.
You may view the NHWAP at: http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Wildlife/wildlife_
plan.htm (accessed May 2011).
The Piscataqua Region Estuaries Partnership (PREP), formerly known as
the “New Hampshire Estuaries Project,” is part of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Estuaries Program. This program is a joint
local/State/Federal program established under the Clean Water Act. Its goal is to
protect and enhance nationally significant estuarine resources. PREP receives its
funding from the EPA and is administered by the University of New Hampshire
(UNH).
PREP strives to
■ improve the water quality and overall health of New Hampshire’s estuaries;
■ support regional development patterns that protect water quality, maintain
open spaces and important habitat, and preserve estuarine resources;
■ track environmental trends through the implementation of a long-term
monitoring program to assess indicators of estuarine health; and,
■ develop broad-based popular support for the implementation of the
management plan by encouraging involvement of the public, local government,
and other interested parties in its implementation.
PREP’s priorities were established by local stakeholders and include water
quality improvements, shellfish resources, land protection, and habitat
restoration. Projects addressing these priorities are undertaken throughout New
Hampshire and southern Maine’s coastal watersheds.
Piscataqua Region
Estuaries Partnership’s
Comprehensive
Conservation and
Management Plan
Chapter 1. Purpose of, and Need for, Action 1-21
National and Regional Plans and Conservation Initiatives
PREP’s Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) for the
region’s estuaries was completed in 2000 and updated in 2010 (PREP 2010).
The management plan outlines key issues related to the management of New
Hampshire’s estuaries and proposes strategies to preserve, protect, and enhance
the State’s estuarine resources.
The National Estuarine Research Reserve System (Reserve System) is a
network of 28 areas protected for long-term research, water quality monitoring,
education, and coastal stewardship. Established by the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972, as amended, the Reserve System is a partnership
program between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
and the coastal states. NOAA provides funding, national guidance, and technical
assistance. Each reserve is managed by a lead state agency or university, with
input from local partners.
The Great Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (GBNERR) was designated
in 1989 and now encompasses 10,235 acres. Great Bay Refuge lies within the
reserve’s boundaries and benefits from the research, education, and outreach
conducted by reserve staff. The NHFG is the lead agency. In 1993, the Great
Bay Discovery Center (formerly known as Sandy Point) was constructed on the
shores of Great Bay Estuary in Greenland, New Hampshire. It serves as the
conservation-education headquarters for the GBNERR. The reserve’s primary
purpose is to promote the wise use and management of the Great Bay Estuary
(http://www.greatbay.org/index.htm [accessed May 2011]).
The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES)
administers the State’s Coastal Program. The New Hampshire Coastal Program
(NHCP) creates and sustains partnerships with local, State, and Federal
agencies, as well as businesses and nonprofit groups to complete planning,
restoration, and education projects. The mission of the NHCP is to “balance the
preservation of natural resources of the coast with the social and economic needs
of this and succeeding generations.”
To accomplish its mission, the program focuses on
■ preventing and reducing coastal pollution;
■ providing public access to coastal lands and waters;
■ fostering community stewardship and awareness of coastal resources;
■ protecting and restoring coastal natural resources; and
■ encouraging a viable economy with adequate infrastructure.
In 1982, New Hampshire received Federal approval from NOAA for the Ocean
and Harbor Segment of its Coastal Program, which incorporated areas in
proximity to the Atlantic Ocean and the lower Piscataqua River. In 1988, the
NHCP received approval from NOAA to expand its boundaries to cover all near
shore areas under tidal influence, including the lands that border Great Bay
and Little Bay Estuaries and several tidal rivers. The NHCP received approval
from NOAA again in 2004 to expand its inland boundary to encompass the
jurisdictional boundary of the 17 municipalities along New Hampshire’s tidal
waters.
The NHCP is responsible for administering the Federal consistency provision
of the Coastal Zone Management Act in New Hampshire. As such, the NHCP
will review the proposals in this CCP to ensure consistency with its enforceable
policies and all State coastal management requirements.
For more information on the NHCP, please visit: http://des.nh.gov/organization/
divisions/water/wmb/coastal/index.htm (accessed September 2011).
Great Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve
New Hampshire Coastal
Program
Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan an 1-22 d Environmental Assessment
National and Regional Plans and Conservation Initiatives
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, power companies, universities, reptile and amphibian organizations,
research laboratories, forest industries, and environmental consultants. Its
five geographic regions—Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Southwest and
Northwest—focus on regional and national reptile and amphibian conservation
challenges.
The National State Agency Herpetological Conservation Report, 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 reptile and amphibian conservation. The purpose is to facilitate
communication among state agencies and partner organizations throughout the
PARC network to identify and address regional and national priorities. The
State of New Hampshire completed report is included in the report online at:
http://www.parcplace.org/documents/PARCNationalStates2004.pdf (accessed
May 2011). We used the New Hampshire plan in developing objectives and
strategies for goals 1 and 2 and in developing Appendix A, “Species and Habitats
of Conservation Concern on Great Bay Refuge.”
Accelerating climate change will affect our nation’s fish, wildlife, and plant
resources in profound ways. While many species will continue to thrive, some
populations may decline and in some instances, go extinct. Others will survive
in the wild only through direct and continuous intervention by managers. The
challenge of climate change requires the Service, its employees, and partners
to work with determination, creativity, and commitment to conserve the nation’s
natural resources.
In response to Secretarial Orders #3226, “Evaluating Climate Change Impacts
in Management Planning” (January 19, 2001) and #3289, “Addressing the
Impacts of Climate Change on America’s Water, Land, and Other Natural and
Cultural Resources” (February 22, 2010), the Service developed the strategic
plan, “Rising to the Urgent Challenge: Strategic Plan for Responding to
Accelerating Climate Change,” to address climate change. The plan establishes
a basic framework for the Service’s work as part of the conservation community
to help ensure the sustainability of fish, wildlife, plants, and habitats in the face
of accelerating climate change. It also details specific steps the Service will take
during the next 5 years to implement the strategic plan (USFWS 2010). The plan
can be accessed online at: http://www.fws.gov/home/climatechange/strategy.html
(accessed December 2011).
The strategic plan’s six guiding principles are:
■ We will continually evaluate our priorities and approaches, make
difficult choices, take calculated risks, and adapt to climate
change.
■ We will commit to a new spirit of coordination, collaboration, and
interdependence with others.
■ We will reflect scientific excellence, professionalism, and integrity
in all our work.
■ We will emphasize the conservation of habitats within sustainable
landscapes, applying our Strategic Habitat Conservation
framework.
Partners in Amphibian and
Reptile Conservation
The Service’s Climate
Change Strategy, “Rising
to the Urgent Challenge”
(USFWS 2010)
Upland sandpiper
Shawn McCready_Flickr_Creative Commons
Chapter 1. Purpose of, and Need for, Action 1-23
National and Regional Plans and Conservation Initiatives
■ We will assemble and use state-of-the-art technical capacity to meet the
climate change challenge.
■ We will be a leader in national and international efforts to address climate
change.
The plan also lists three key strategies to address climate change: adaptation,
mitigation, and engagement.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines adaptation as
an, “adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected
climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial
opportunities.” In the strategic plan, adaptation refers to planned management
actions the Service will take to reduce the impacts of climate change on fish,
wildlife, and their habitats. Adaptation forms the core of the Service’s response
to climate change and is the centerpiece of our strategic plan. This adaptive
response to climate change will involve strategic conservation of terrestrial,
freshwater, and marine habitats within sustainable landscapes.
The IPCC defines mitigation as “human intervention to reduce the sources or
enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases.” Mitigation involves reducing our “carbon
footprint” by using less energy, consuming fewer materials, and appropriately
changing our land management practices. Mitigation is also achieved through
biological carbon sequestration, which is a process in which carbon dioxide
(CO2) from the atmosphere is taken up by plants through photosynthesis and
stored as carbon in biomass (e.g., tree trunks and roots). Sequestering carbon
in vegetation, such as native hardwood forests or grassland, can often restore or
improve habitat and directly benefit fish and wildlife.
Engagement involves reaching out to Service employees; local, national, and
international partners in the public and private sectors; key stakeholders; and the
general public to find solutions to the challenges to fish and wildlife conservation
posed by climate change.
The Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies has developed guidance for states as
they update and implement their respective wildlife action plans (AFWA 2009).
This publication, “Voluntary Guidance for States to Incorporate Climate Change
into State Wildlife Action Plans and Other Management Plans,” also includes
strategies that will help conserve fish and wildlife species and their habitats
and ecosystems as climate conditions change. The broad spatial and temporal
scales associated with climate change suggest that management efforts that are
coordinated on at least the regional scale will likely lead to greater success. The
Service will work with our state partners, among others, on meeting the climate
change challenge.
The Service’s Climate Change Web site at: http://www.fws.gov/home/
climatechange/strategy.html (accessed December 2011), provides detailed
information on the priority actions the Service is taking through 2011 to begin to
implement the strategic plan.
Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) are a network of conservation
science and management partnerships across the U.S. and its international
borders. LCCs were created in response to the unprecedented level of large-scale
pressures on natural systems (e.g., land use pressures, habitat loss and
fragmentation, invasive species, and climate change) and the need for agencies
and organizations to work together to find long-term solutions to these threats.
Each LCC is comprised of Federal and state agencies, Tribes, universities, and
North Atlantic Landscape
Conservation Cooperative
Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan an 1-24 d Environmental Assessment
Refuge Purposes and Land Acquisition History
public and private organizations, collectively working to sustain America’s lands,
waters, wildlife, and cultural resources. By functioning as an interdependent
network, LCCs are able to accomplish more together than any single agency or
organization alone. LCC partners use their combined resources to collaboratively
■ identify common science needs, conservation goals, and priorities;
■ develop science-based tools and solutions to meet shared conservation goals;
■ support biological planning, conservation design, and adaptive management;
and
■ evaluate the effectiveness of scientific information and conservation
actions (http://www.fws.gov/science/shc/pdf/LCC_Fact_Sheet.pdf [accessed
August 2011]).
Great Bay Refuge lies in the the North Atlantic LCC, which covers portions
of 12 Northeastern States and the District of Columbia (map 1.3). The North
Atlantic LCC’s 2009 Development and Operations Plan identified priority actions
for the LCC and included a preliminary list of conservation priority species and
habitats, many of which are on the refuge. The LCC partner group continues
to update and refine its priorities, and is working on a representative species
list to help focus inventories and monitoring. Refuge staff will stay attentive to
new developments arising from the LCC partnership and adapt management
accordingly. For more information on the North Atlantic LCC and its current
conservation priorities, visit: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/science/nalcc.html
(accessed August 2011).
The purposes for Great Bay Refuge are derived from public law (Public Law
102-154, Section 319(d) Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill, 1992). This act by Congress describes the terms of the land
transfer of the Pease Air Force Base in New Hampshire, to the Department of
the Interior as a national wildlife refuge. The act also states that the Secretary
of the Air Force retains responsibility for any hazardous substance which may be
found on the property. The following purposes were established for this refuge:
■ To encourage the natural diversity of plant, fish, and wildlife species within the
refuge, and to provide for their conservation and management
■ To protect species federally listed as endangered or threatened or identified as
candidates pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973
■ To preserve and enhance the water quality of aquatic habitat within the refuge
■ To fulfill the international treaty obligations of the U.S relating to fish and
wildlife
Currently, Great Bay Refuge encompasses 1,103 acres (map 1.1), with Federal
jurisdiction to the mean high waterline. In 1992, the Department of Defense
transferred the original 1,054 acres of the refuge to the Service. The transfer
occurred because the Pease Air Force Base was one of 89 U.S. military
installations closed by the Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law 100-
526). Although the refuge was dedicated in October of 1992, it was not officially
opened to public access until 1996.
Refuge Purposes
and Land Acquisition
History
Refuge Purposes
Acquisition History
Chapter 1. Purpose of, and Need for, Action 1-25
Refuge Vision Statement
In 2003, the refuge acquired an additional 33 acres on Fabyan Point in fee title
from a willing seller. Fabyan Point is a spit of land on Great Bay located south of
the main portion of the refuge. The parcel was bought by the Service using Land
and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF) which is a funding source appropriated
annually by Congress that comes from a variety of revenue sources rather than
general tax revenues. At the time of sale, seven tenants living on the parcel were
relocated with compensation and their cottages still remain on the property. This
acquisition included a right-of-way access in common with others on Fabyan Point
Road off of McIntyre Road.
For any future land acquisitions, the Service’s policy is to acquire land only
from willing sellers at fair market value. Landowners may sell their land to the
Service in fee title (outright), or they may sell development rights through a
conservation easement. Private landowners within an approved refuge acquisition
boundary who do not wish to sell will continue to retain full control of their
property and their rights to use it, in compliance with applicable local, state, and
Federal regulations.
Great Bay Refuge also administers the 29-acre Karner blue butterfly conservation
easement in Concord, New Hampshire. This easement was established in
July 1992 through a cooperative agreement between the Service, the city of
Concord, the Concord Community Development Corporation (CCDC), the U.S.
Postal Service, and TNC. The Service’s easement, located in the Concord Airport
Industrial Park, consists of two adjacent parcels that were donated to the Service
by the city of Concord following an exchange of airport land between the city of
Concord and the nonprofit CCDC. The easement was established to protect a
small remnant pine barren community in Concord that is habitat for the federally
listed endangered Karner blue butterfly and other rare Lepidoptera (moths
and butterflies). TNC agreed to serve as a managing partner with the Service
while the city of Concord and CCDC agreed to cooperate in the research and
management of Karner blue butterfly habitat in management agreement areas.
Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge (Great Bay Refuge, the refuge) will
be a treasured cornerstone in protecting and restoring the Great Bay
Estuary’s unique and significant ecological and cultural resources, which are
unparalleled in New England. The estuary’s shallow tidal waters will teem with
a rich diversity of aquatic resources, from oysters and eelgrass beds, to healthy
populations of migratory fish. The refuge’s oak-hickory forests, grasslands,
shrublands, and freshwater ponds will support a bounty of wildlife throughout
the year. During winter, bald eagles will thrill refuge visitors as they taunt the
many and diverse flocks of waterfowl and waterbirds foraging and resting in
its quiet, protected waters. In spring, the refuge’s forests, fields, and wetlands
will fill with a symphony of bird songs and frog calls. The summer will reward
visitors with the opportunity to view native fledgling birds, fawns, and other
young of the year. During the fall, the refuge will host hundreds of migrating
species ranging from waterfowl, to songbirds, bats, and butterflies, all needing
safe haven in an increasingly urbanized landscape.
Visitors from throughout New England will travel to Great Bay Refuge to
become immersed in the sights and sounds of nature. The refuge will showcase
innovative, science-based, adaptive management techniques and, coupled
with exceptional outreach, education, and interpretive programs, help raise
awareness and appreciation of the natural world and uphold the mission
of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The refuge, in collaboration with
partners, will work tirelessly to expand the protection and conservation of the
Great Bay Estuary and its native habitats and wildlife for the benefit of the
American people.
Karner Blue Butterfly
Conservation Easement
Refuge Vision
Statement
Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan an 1-26 d Environmental Assessment
Refuge Goals
The Karner blue butterfly easement lands in Concord, New Hampshire, will
contribute to the recovery of the federally endangered Karner blue butterfly.
Each spring, the flowers of native lupine plants growing among pitch pine on
the easement lands will attract thousands of adult Karner blue butterflies to
feed on nectar. During the summer, an abundance of Karner blue caterpillars
will feed on the lupine leaves. As part of an extraordinarily dedicated
partnership, the easement is a key link in the network of lands in the Concord
area managed to help reverse the butterfly’s decline and bring the species back
from the brink of extirpation.
The purpose
of the CCP is
to provide the
refuge with a
15-year strategic
management
plan, consistent
with Service
policies and legal
mandates that
will achieve the
following five
refuge goals.
These goals were
developed after
consideration of
refuge purposes,
the Service and
Refuge System
missions, our
vision for the
refuge, and the
mandates, plans,
and conservation initiatives described above. These goals are intentionally broad,
descriptive statements of purpose.
Goal 1: Perpetuate the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health
of estuarine and freshwater habitats on Great Bay Refuge to protect water
quality and sustain native plant communities and wildlife, including species of
conservation concern.
Goal 2: Perpetuate the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of
upland and forested wetland habitats on Great Bay Refuge to sustain native plant
communities and wildlife, including species of conservation concern.
Goal 3: Foster and maintain conservation, research, and management
partnerships to promote protection and stewardship of the ecological resources of
the Great Bay Estuary.
Goal 4: Promote enjoyment and awareness of Great Bay Refuge and Great Bay
Estuary by providing high-quality, compatible wildlife-dependent public uses on
refuge lands and on partner lands and waters around the refuge.
Goal 5: Contribute to the recovery of the federally listed endangered Karner blue
butterfly and other rare Lepidoptera through the conservation, protection, and
restoration of pine barrens habitat.
Refuge Goals
A view of the salt marsh looking toward Fabyan Point
Greg Thompson/USFWS
Chapter 1. Purpose of, and Need for, Action 1-27
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
Service policy (602 FW 3) establishes a planning process that also complies
with NEPA (figure 1.1). The full text of the policy and a detailed description of
the planning steps can be viewed at: http://policy.fws.gov/602fw3.html (accessed
May 2011). We followed the process depicted below in developing this draft CCP/
EA. The planning process for the draft CCP/EA involved three primary steps:
(1) initial planning, (2) public scoping, and (3) plan development. These steps are
described below in more detail and depicted in figure 1.1.
Figure 1.1 The Service’s Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
Step A: Initial Planning
We began preparing a CCP for Great Bay Refuge in 2009. Initially, we focused on
collecting information on the refuge’s natural and cultural resources and public
use program. The CCP core team of refuge and regional office staff and two
representatives from NHFG started meeting to discuss existing information,
draft a vision statement, and prepare for the public scoping meeting and a
technical meeting of State and Federal partners.
Step B: Public Scoping
We held a public scoping meeting on June 18, 2009, at the Newington Town Hall.
We announced the location, date, and time for this meeting in local newspapers
and through special mailings. Twenty-two people attended the meeting, which
was held to let people know what the Service was doing to manage Great Bay
Refuge, and to elicit their input on topics of interest to them about the refuge.
The Comprehensive
Conservation Planning
Process
The Comprehensive
Conservation
Planning Process &
NEPA Compliance
A. Preplanning:
Plan the Plan
NEPA
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁐􅀀􀁕􅔀􀁒􅈀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀􀁓􅌀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀁁􄄀􀁎􄸀􀁄􄐀􀀀􀁎􄸀􀁅􄔀􀁅􄔀􀁄􄑅
E. Prepare Draft
Plan & NEPA
􀀤􂐀􀁏􄼀􀁃􄌀􀁕􅔀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔���
NEPA
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁐􅀀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀁐􅀀􀁁􄄀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀􀁄􄐀􀁉􄤀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀􀁒􅈀􀁉􄤀􀁂􄈀􀁕􅔀􀁔􅐀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀁄􄐀􀁒􅈀􀁁􄄀􀁆􄘀􀁔􅐀􀀀
􀀀􀀀􀀣􂌀􀀣􂌀􀀰􃀀􀀀􀁁􄄀􀁎􄸀􀁄􄐀􀀀􀀮􂸀􀀥􂔀􀀰􃀀􀀡􂄀􀀀
􀀀􀀀􀁄􄐀􀁏􄼀􀁃􄌀􀁕􅔀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀁁􄄀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁏􄼀􀁎􄸀
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁐􅀀􀁕􅔀􀁂􄈀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀􀀀􀁃􄌀􀁏􄼀􀁍􄴀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀􀀠
review
􀀤􂐀􀀎􀸀􀀀􀀤􂐀􀁅􄔀􀁖􅘀􀁅􄔀􀁌􄰀􀁏􄼀􀁐􅀀􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀􀁁
Analyze
􀀡􂄀􀁌􄰀􀁔􅐀􀁅􄔀􀁒􅈀􀁎􄸀􀁁􄄀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁖􅘀􀁅􄔀􀁓􅍎
NEPA
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀁁􄄀􀁓􅌀􀁏􄼀􀁎􄸀􀁁􄄀􀁂􄈀􀁌􄰀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀁒􅈀􀁁􄄀􀁎􄸀􀁇􄜀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀁏􄼀􀁆􄘀􀀀􀀠
􀁁􄄀􀁌􄰀􀁔􅐀􀁅􄔀􀁒􅈀􀁎􄸀􀁁􄄀����􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁖􅘀􀁅􄔀􀁓􅌀
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀀮􂸀􀁏􄼀􀀀􀀡􂄀􀁃􄌀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁏􄼀􀁎􄸀􀀀􀁁􄄀􀁌􄰀􀁔􅐀􀁅􄔀􀁒􅈀􀁎􄸀􀁁􄄀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁖􅘀􀁅􄔀
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁁􄄀􀁃􄌀􀁃􄌀􀁅􄔀􀁓􅌀􀁓􅌀􀀀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁖􅘀􀁉􄤀􀁒􅈀􀁏􄼀􀁎􄸀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀁁􄄀􀁌􄰀􀀀􀀠
􀁅􄔀􀁆􄘀􀁆􄘀􀁅􄔀􀁃􄌀􀁔􅐀􀁓􅌀
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁔􅐀􀁈􄠀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀀰􃀀􀁒􅈀􀁏􄼀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀􀁓􅌀􀁅􄔀􀁄􄐀􀀀􀀡􂄀􀁃􄌀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁏􄼀􀁎􄸀
􀀦􂘀􀀎􀸀􀀀􀀰􃀀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀁐􅀀􀁁􄄀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀􀀡􂄀􀁄􄐀􀁏􄼀􀁐􅀀􀁔􅐀􀀀􀁆
Final Plan
NEPA
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀁓􅌀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀􀁎􄸀􀁄􄐀􀀀􀁔􅐀􀁏􄼀􀀀􀁐􅀀􀁕􅔀􀁂􄈀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀􀀀􀁃􄌀􀁏􄼀􀁍􄴀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁉􄤀􀁄􄐀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀����􄤀􀁆􄘀􀁙􅤀􀀀􀁐􅀀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀁆􄘀􀁅􄔀􀁒􅈀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀁄􄐠
alternative
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁐􅀀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀁐􅀀􀁁􄄀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀􀁄􄐀􀁉􄤀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀􀁒􅈀􀁉􄤀􀁂􄈀􀁕􅔀􀁔􅐀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀁆􄘀􀁉􄤀􀁎􄸀􀁁􄄀􀁌􄰀􀀀
􀀀􀀀􀀣􂌀􀀣􂌀􀀰􃀀􀀀􀁁􄄀􀁎􄸀􀁄􄐀􀀀􀀮􂸀􀀥􂔀􀀰􃀀􀀡􂄀􀀀
􀀀􀀀􀁄􄐀􀁏􄼀􀁃􄌀􀁕􅔀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀁁􄄀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁏􄼀􀁎􄸀
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁐􅀀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀁐􅀀􀁁􄄀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀􀁄􄐀􀁉􄤀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀􀁒􅈀􀁉􄤀􀁂􄈀􀁕􅔀􀁔􅐀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀀦􂘀􀀯􂼀􀀮􂸀􀀳􃌀􀀩􂤀􀀀
􀀀􀀀􀁆􄘀􀁏􄼀􀁒􅈀􀀀􀀥􂔀􀀡􂄀􀀀􀁏􄼀􀁒􅈀􀀀􀀲􃈀􀀯􂼀􀀤􂐀􀀀􀁆􄘀􀁏􄼀􀁒􅈀􀀀􀀥􂔀􀀩􂤀􀀳􃌀
􀀣􂌀􀀎􀸀􀀀􀀲􃈀􀁅􄔀􀁖􅘀􀁉􄤀􀁅􄔀􀁗􅜀􀀀􀀶􃘀􀁉􄤀􀁓􅌀􀁉􄤀􀁏􄼀􀁎􄸀􀀀
􀀳􃌀􀁔􅐀􀁁􄄀􀁔􅐀􀁅􄔀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀􀀧􂜀􀁏􄼀􀁁􄄀􀁌􄰀􀁓􅌀􀀀
􀀆􀘀􀀀􀀤􂐀􀁅􄔀􀁔􅐀􀁅􄔀􀁒􅈀􀁍􄴀􀁉􄤀􀁎􄸀􀁅􄔀􀀀
􀀳􃌀􀁉􄤀􀁇􄜀􀁎􄸀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀􀁁􄄀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀀀􀀩􂤀􀁓􅌀􀁓􅌀􀁕􅔀􀁅􄔀􀁓􅍎
NEPA
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁉􄤀􀁄􄐀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀁙􅤀􀀀􀁓􅌀􀁉􄤀􀁇􄜀􀁎􄸀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀􀁁􄄀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀀀􀁉􄤀􀁓􅌀􀁓􅌀􀁕􅔀􀁅􄔀􀁓􅌀
􀀧􂜀􀀎􀸀􀀀􀀩􂤀􀁍􄴀􀁐􅀀􀁌􄰀􀁅􄔀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀀀􀀰􃀀􀁌􄰀􀁁􄄀􀁎􄸀􀀌􀰀􀀀
􀀭􂴀􀁏􄼀􀁎􄸀􀁉􄤀􀁔􅐀􀁏􄼀􀁒􅈀􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀􀀥􂔀􀁖􅘀􀁁􄄀􀁌􄰀􀁕􅔀􀁁􄄀􀁔􅐀􀁅􄕎
NEPA
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀀮􂸀􀀥􂔀􀀰􃀀􀀡􂄀􀀀􀁃􄌀􀁏􄼀􀁍􄴀􀁐􅀀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁁􄄀􀁎􄸀􀁃􄌀􀁅���􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀
􀀀􀀀􀁐􅀀􀁕􅔀􀁂􄈀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀􀀀􀁉􄤀􀁎􄸀􀁖􅘀􀁏􄼀􀁌􄰀􀁖􅘀􀁅􄔀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀀀
􀀀􀀀􀁗􅜀􀁈􄠀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀀀􀁁􄄀􀁐􅀀􀁐􅀀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀􀁁􄄀􀁂􄈀􀁌􄰀􀁅􄔀
􀀢􂈀􀀎􀸀􀀀􀀩􂤀􀁎􄸀􀁉􄤀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁁􄄀􀁔􅐀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀀰􃀀􀁕􅔀􀁂􄈀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀􀀀
􀀩􂤀􀁎􄸀􀁖􅘀􀁏􄼀􀁌􄰀􀁖􅘀􀁅􄔀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀
􀀳􃌀􀁃􄌀􀁏􄼀􀁐􅀀􀁉􄤀􀁎􄸀􀁇􄝎
NEPA
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁎􄸀􀁏􄼀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀁙􅤀􀀀􀁔􅐀􀁈􄠀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀁐􅀀􀁕􅔀􀁂􄈀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁉􄤀􀁎􄸀􀁖􅘀􀁏􄼀􀁌􄰀􀁖􅘀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀁔􅐀􀁈􄠀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀁐􅀀􀁕􅔀􀁂􄈀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁓􅌀􀁃􄌀􀁏􄼀􀁐􅀀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀁔􅐀􀁈􄠀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀁉􄤀􀁓􅌀􀁓􅌀􀁕􅔀􀁅􄔀􀁓􅌀
􀀨􂠀􀀎􀸀􀀀􀀲􃈀􀁅􄔀􀁖􅘀􀁉􄤀􀁅􄔀􀁗􅜀􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀􀀲􃈀􀁅􄔀􀁖􅘀􀁉􄤀􀁓􅌀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀁐
Plan
NEPA
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀀮􂸀􀀥􂔀􀀰􃀀􀀡􂄀􀀀􀁃􄌀􀁏􄼀􀁍􄴀􀁐􅀀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁁􄄀􀁎􄸀􀁃􄌀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀􀀀􀀠
􀁐􅀀􀁕􅔀􀁂􄈀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀􀀀􀁉􄤀􀁎􄸀􀁖􅘀􀁏􄼀􀁌􄰀􀁖􅘀􀁅􄔀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀀀􀁗􅜀􀁈􄠀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀀀􀀠
􀁁􄄀􀁐􅀀􀁐􅀀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀􀁁􄄀􀁂􄈀􀁌􄰀􀁅􄔀
Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan an 1-28 d Environmental Assessment
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
In June 2009, we distributed a newsletter announcing the kick-off of the
planning process. We followed that distribution late June with a mailing of issues
workbooks. We distributed a workbook to everyone on our mailing list, to those
who attended the public meeting, and to anyone who subsequently requested
one. The purpose of the workbook was to collect ideas, concerns, and suggestions
on important issues about refuge management. In the workbook, we asked the
public to share what they valued most about the refuge, their vision for the future
of Great Bay Refuge, and any other refuge issues they wanted to raise. Eleven
copies of the workbooks were completed and returned, along with other written
responses.
Steps C and D: Vision, Goals, and Alternatives Development
We held a meeting with 26 representatives of State and Federal partners on
July 8, 2009, at the Great Bay Discovery Center in Stratham, New Hampshire.
The purpose of the meeting was to identify issues, determine the significant
resource values attributed to the refuge, and to seek advice from technical
experts on what resources of conservation concern in the refuge planning
area should be a management priority. We continued to consult with experts
throughout 2009 and 2010, and to meet regularly as a core team, as we developed
and refined our alternatives.
Step E: Draft CCP and NEPA document
This draft CCP/EA represents planning step E to prepare a draft plan and
NEPA document. We will publish a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register
announcing our release of this draft for a 30-day period of public review and
comment. During that comment period, we will also hold a public meeting to
obtain comments directly from individuals. We expect to receive comments by
regular mail, e-mail, or at the public meeting. After the comment period ends, we
will review and summarize all of the comments received, develop our responses,
revise the CCP as warranted based on the comments, and publish the comments
and our responses in an appendix to the final CCP.
Step F: Adopt Final Plan
Once we have prepared the final CCP, we will submit it to our Regional Director
for approval. The Regional Director will determine whether it warrants a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), and may find its analysis sufficient
to simultaneously issue a decision adopting a CCP. If the Regional Director has
concerns, we may be required to revise the EA or complete an environmental
impact statement (EIS). We will announce the final decision by publishing Notice
of Availability in the Federal Register, where we will also notify people of the
availability of the final CCP. That will complete planning step F to prepare and
adopt a final plan.
We developed a list of key issues to address in the CCP from the responses to our
issues workbook, public scoping meeting, technical meeting with partners, and
planning team discussions. We define an issue as “any unsettled matter requiring
a management decision.” This can be an “initiative, opportunity, resource
management problem, threat to a resource, conflict in use, or a public concern.”
One of the distinctions among the proposed management alternatives is how each
addresses these key issues. The following summary provides a context for the
issues that arose during the scoping process.
The refuge was acquired in 1992, to conserve fish and wildlife and their habitats
and to protect water quality. This is the foundation for what we do on the refuge.
Despite its relatively small size at just over 1,100 acres, Great Bay Refuge is
surprisingly diverse in its habitats and the species that it supports. The wide
variety of habitats on the refuge is the result of human disturbances and past
Issues, Concerns, and
Opportunities
Habitat and Species
Management
Chapter 1. Purpose of, and Need for, Action 1-29
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
land uses. The grasslands and impounded wetlands are examples of habitats
that were created prior to Service ownership, and are now maintained to
benefit wildlife. The refuge’s shoreline along Great Bay Estuary is important in
protecting water quality in the bay. The refuge’s salt marsh and rocky shoreline,
as well as adjacent intertidal areas, are critical to the health of the entire Great
Bay Estuary.
We heard a range of opinions, particularly from our partners, on which habitat
types we should emphasize and which Federal trust and State species of concern
should be a management focus. Some of those habitats favored, in particular
those for grassland and shrublands habitats, can be labor-intensive and expensive
to maintain. Impounded wetlands can also require intensive management and
maintenance. All habitat management decisions present tradeoffs between
various suites of species that use different habitat types. Many people noted the
potential role of the refuge in helping to restore oysters and eelgrass in the bay.
The history of the refuge as a former Air Force base presents some species and
habitat management considerations due to remaining military infrastructure and
historic buildings and environmental contaminants. The alternatives in chapter 3
analyze different habitat management priorities.
The following key issues and concerns arose concerning habitat and species
management:
■ What is the appropriate contribution of the refuge to regional landscape
habitat goals, including grassland and shrubland habitats?
■ Which grassland and shrub habitat areas on the refuge should be maintained?
How will we manage for them on the refuge?
■ Which upland forest habitats and forest-dependent species should be
management priorities? How will we manage for them on the refuge?
■ How should we manage the former Weapons Storage Area, consistent with
refuge goals and objectives?
■ What role, if any, should the refuge have in restoring New England cottontail,
a candidate for the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered Species?
■ What is the refuge’s role in restoring Karner blue butterflies to the Concord
pine barrens?
■ How will we balance the management of aquatic habitats for wetland-dependent
birds, fisheries, and biological integrity?
■ How will we manage the refuge’s impoundments? Should we pursue restoration
of wetland habitats through dam removal?
■ How will we ensure the integrity of water quality to protect freshwater and
saltwater-dependent species?
■ What role should the refuge have in helping to restore oysters and eelgrass
beds in Great Bay Estuary?
■ How will the refuge manage exemplary natural communities and protect rare
plant populations?
Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan an 1-30 d Environmental Assessment
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
Invasive species are those that are nonnative (or alien) to the area and which
cause, or are likely to cause, economic or environmental damage or harm to
human health. Great Bay Refuge began a systematic inventory and mapping
of invasive plant species in 2002. Much of the refuge has been mapped and 34
invasive species recorded. This is typical of southeastern New Hampshire, and
especially on lands previously disturbed, like the refuge. Invasive plant species
are a significant management challenge given that they occur in all habitats on
the refuge. Invasive species control methods used on the refuge include hand
pulling with weed wrenches, annual mowing, herbicides, and biological controls
for purple loosestrife. In addition to invasive plants, the nonnative mute swan
occurs in Great Bay waters, including the refuge. The Service has partnered with
NHFG to control this species given its negative impact on native waterfowl and
their habitats.
The following key issues and concerns arose concerning invasive species:
■ Which invasive species should be a priority for control on refuge lands?
■ How will we control specific invasive plant and animal species on refuge lands?
As the site of a former Air Force base, the refuge still has potential contaminant
issues. The adjacent Pease Airport presents additional challenges because runoff
from the airport could flow onto the refuge. The airport authority is currently
installing new de-icing pads not far from the refuge boundary. It is unclear what,
if any, potential threat runoff from these pads might pose to refuge resources.
The following key issues and concerns arose concerning environmental
contaminants:
■ How will we address environmental contaminants resulting from past land
uses and from offsite activities?
■ How will we work with the Pease Airport Authority to protect water quality
and address potential airport/wildlife conflicts?
Historically, wildlife conservation efforts have tended to focus on single species
or small suites of species. Given the changing landscape and climate, we need
to manage and collaborate with partners beyond traditional boundaries. Some
impacts — such as climate change, urbanization, resource extraction, and other
economic and social pressures — occur at scales well beyond the boundaries of
a single refuge and affect entire ecosystems, not just a few species. Landscape-level
conservation involving multiple partners working together across large
regions might be one of the most effective and important ways to help species
of conservation concern and their habitats. Research collaboratives among
multiple partners and at multiple scales can identify regional trends that would
inform site specific management on the refuge. Almost all the respondents to
the issues workbook supported a greater refuge role in protecting habitats
outside the current refuge boundary. This included support for all methods of
habitat conservation, including fee simple and conservation easement acquisition,
supporting other conservation partners in their acquisitions, landowner
education, and habitat restoration on private lands.
The following key issues and concerns arose concerning landscape-scale
conservation and climate change:
■ What role should the Service play in conserving lands and habitats in the Great
Bay watershed and in the Concord pine barrens?
Invasive Species
Environmental
Contaminants
Landscape-scale
Conservation and Climate
Change
Chapter 1. Purpose of, and Need for, Action 1-31
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
■ How can the refuge work with partners to improve the water quality of the
Great Bay Estuary?
■ How can the refuge enhance its partnerships within the region to meet
landscape-scale conservation concerns, such as climate change, invasive
species, land development, and habitat fragmentation?
■ What actions can the refuge take, in partnership with others, to minimize
impacts from climate change?
■ What role should the refuge play in regional research collaboratives that
address management issues of concern to the Service?
The Refuge Improvement Act identified wildlife observation and photography
as two priority public uses for refuges, along with environmental education,
interpretation, hunting, and fishing. In 2006, a regional visitor services team
identified wildlife observation and photography as the areas of emphasis for
Great Bay Refuge. We heard during public scoping that the primary reasons that
many people visit the refuge are for wildlife and nature viewing, specifically for
bird watching and hiking the nature trails. Many respondents also wanted to
see more access and more trails on the refuge, but supported the primary roles
of the refuge as conserving habitat and protecting water quality. Our partners
recognize that not all priority public uses can be provided on the refuge, and that
some of these activities are available on other lands in the Great Bay area that
are open to the public.
The lack of staffing at the refuge has limited our ability to expand and monitor
public uses on the refuge, and outreach to the community to offer environmental
education and interpretive programs in collaboration with our community
partners. Partnerships, including the existing core volunteer group, are essential
to meeting the vision and goals of Great Bay Refuge. In 2008, volunteers
contributed 2,500 to 3,000 hours to the refuge.
The following key issues and concerns arose concerning public uses and
community relations:
■ What are the appropriate types and levels of wildlife-dependent public uses on
the refuge?
■ How will we manage compatible, nonpriority public uses on the refuge?
■ What staffing levels are needed to enhance onsite interpretation,
environmental education, and outreach programs to reach a wider audience?
■ What partnership opportunities exist to increase the number of environmental
education, interpretation, and outreach programs?
■ How will the refuge cultivate an informed and educated public to support the
mission of the Service and the purposes for which the refuge was established?
■ How will we build and maintain an active volunteer program?
At least 22 archaeological or historical sites are present on Great Bay Refuge,
including the remains of brick factories, ferry landings, and the foundations of
buildings that were once part of local dairy operations. Two structures from
the former Margeson Estate, the main house and a caretakers’s residence,
remain on the refuge and are located on Long Point Road in an area closed
Public Uses and Community
Partnerships
Cultural Resources
Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan an 1-32 d Environmental Assessment
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
to the public. Both structures are listed as part of a district nomination in the
National Registry of Historic Places. As a Federal land management agency,
we are responsible for locating and protecting cultural resources, including
archaeological sites and historic structures. Balancing the protection of historic
resources with the refuge’s primary purposes of wildife and habitat conservation
is a management challenge.
The following key issues and concerns arose concerning cultural resources:
■ How should we steward the historical structures on the refuge, including the
Margeson Estate?
■ What should we do with other remaining structures, including the bunkers and
other infrastructure remaining from the former Air Force base?
■ How will we preserve, protect, and interpret cultural resources on refuge
lands?
The Margeson Estate main house at Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Mao Teng Lin/USFWS
Chapter 2
Wood duck
Tim McCabe/USFWS
Affected Environment
■ Introduction
■ Part I–The Regional Setting
● Water Quality and Health of the Great Bay Estuary
● Conserved Lands Network
● Land Use Trends
● Climate
● Air Quality
● The Historical Picture
● Regional Demographics and Economic Setting
■ Part II–The Refuge and its Resources
● Refuge Administration
● Refuge Natural Resources
● Cultural and Historic Resources
● Public Use Programs
● Volunteer Program
● Key Refuge Partnerships
● Karner Blue Butterfly Conservation Easement
Chapter 2. Affected Environment 2-1
Introduction
This chapter describes the ecological, physical, and socioeconomic setting of
Great Bay Refuge in a regional and local context. We first describe the regional
landscape, including its historical and contemporary influences. We then describe
the refuge and its resources.
Part I. The Regional Setting
In addition to the 1,103-acre Great Bay Refuge, we also administer the 29-acre
conservation easement in Concord, New Hampshire, as pine barrens habitat
for the federally listed endangered Karner blue butterfly. The easement is
approximately 45 miles west of Great Bay and is described separately below.
Great Bay Refuge lies within the Gulf of Maine watershed, an immense area
extending from eastern Quebec to Cape Cod in Massachusetts. Along New
Hampshire’s coast, the Gulf of Maine’s tidal waters flow twice daily up the
Piscataqua River through Little Bay and then into Great Bay at Furber Strait.
Collectively, these water bodies are described as the Great Bay Estuary system.
This is one of the most productive ecosystems on the East Coast (Odell et al.
2006). The refuge sits on the eastern shore of Great Bay.
The Great Bay Estuary is approximately 10 miles inland from New Hampshire’s
seacoast and adds more than 130 miles of tidal shoreline to the 18 miles of
shoreline along the State’s coast. Seven major rivers flow into the Great Bay
Estuary system: the Winnicut, Squamscot, Lamprey, Oyster, Bellamy, Cocheco,
and Salmon Falls. Together these rivers drain nearly 1,000 square miles. The
major habitats in Great Bay are eelgrass meadows, mudflats, salt marsh, channel
bottoms, and rocky intertidal habitat. These habitats support over 16 bird, fish,
and plant species, 26 of which are State-listed threatened or endangered (see
appendix A) (http://greatbay.or