Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              Rachel Carson
National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment
August 2006
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
This blue goose, designed by J.N.
“Ding�� Darling, has become the
symbol of the National Wildlife
Refuge System.
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is the principal federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting,
and enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The
Service manages the 93-million acre National Wildlife Refuge System comprised of more than 535 national
wildlife refuges and thousands of waterfowl production areas. It also operates 65 national fish hatcheries
and 78 ecological services field stations. The agency enforces federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird
populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restore wildlife habitat such as wetlands,
administers the Endangered Species Act, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts.
It also oversees the Federal Aid Program which distributes hundred of millions of dollars in excise taxes on
fishing and hunting equipment to state wildlife agencies.
CCPs provide long-term guidance for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service management decisions; they set forth
goals, objectives, and strategies for accomplishing refuge purposes; and, they identify our best estimate of
future needs. They detail levels of program planning that are sometimes substantially above our current
budget allocations; as such, they serve primarily in strategic planning and in prioritizing Service programs.
They do not constitute a commitment for increases in staffing, operating and maintenance, or future land
acquisition funding.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Abstract
Alternative A
Alternative B
Alternative C
Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge
Type of action: Administrative
Lead agency: U.S. Department of the Interior
Responsible official: Marvin Moriarty, Regional Director, Region 5
For further information: Carl Melberg
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 5
300 Westgate Center Drive
Hadley, MA 01035
(413) 253-8251
northeastplanning@fws.gov
The Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Rachel Carson
National Wildlife Refuge fully compares three management alternatives. A brief overview of each
alternative follows.
Protection of remaining 3,833 acres within the approved acquisition boundary and continued
current management.
This is the “no action” alternative required by regulations under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969. Selecting this alternative maintains the status quo in refuge management
actions over the next 15 years. This alternative portrays current, planned, and approved
management and staffing and serves as a baseline for comparing and contrasting the two
“action” alternatives. It also incorporates three new facilities to support current and approved
management, staffing, and administrative obligations.
This is the current management.
Refuge expansion of 5,558 acres and notably expanded management and public use.
Selecting this alternative will protect the 3,833 acres remaining within the approved acquisition
boundary and expand the refuge by 5,558 acres beyond its current approved boundary. It
would add additional acreage to the Brave Boat Harbor, Upper Wells, Spurwink, Biddeford,
Mousam River, Little River, and Moody divisions, and would establish a new York River Division
encompassing the largest undeveloped salt marsh south of Portland. A new administrative
complex, including office space, maintenance facilities, and visitor contact station, will be built.
This alternative, and alternative C, include combining the Moody, Lower Wells, Upper Wells, and
Mousam River divisions into one Wells Bay Division.
This is the preferred alternative.
Refuge expansion of 11,397 acres and greatly expanded management and recreation.
Selecting this alternative will protect the 3,833 acres remaining within the approved acquisition
boundary and expand the refuge by 11,397 acres beyond its current approved boundary. The
11,397-acre expansion includes the 5,558 acres in alternative B, and would add acreage to the
Brave Boat Harbor, Upper Wells, Spurwink, Biddeford, and Moody divisions. It would establish
a new York River Division, encompassing the largest undeveloped salt marsh south of Portland,
and build a new administrative complex, including office space, maintenance facilities and visitor
center. This alternative would require the greatest increases in budget and staffing.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................1-1
The Purpose and Need for Action..........................................................................................................................1-1
Project Area..............................................................................................................................................................1-2
Service Policies and Legal Mandates Guiding the CCP ......................................................................................1-3
National and Regional Plans and Conservation Initiatives Guiding the CCP..................................................1-9
Refuge Purposes and Land Acquisition History ..................................................................................................1-12
Refuge Operational Plans (“Step-Down” Plans)...................................................................................................1-13
Wilderness Review...................................................................................................................................................1-14
Rachel Carson Refuge Vision Statement...............................................................................................................1-14
Refuge Goals .............................................................................................................................................................1-15
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process ..........................................................................................1-16
Issues and Opportunities.........................................................................................................................................1-17
Plan Amendment and Revision ...............................................................................................................................1-21
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including Our Service-Preferred Alternative
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................2-1
Formulating Alternatives........................................................................................................................................2-1
Alternatives, Including the No Action Alternative...............................................................................................2-2
Actions Common to All Alternatives ......................................................................................................................2-2
Alternatives or Actions Considered but not Fully Developed.............................................................................2-6
Description of Individual Alternatives Analyzed in Detail..................................................................................2-6
Alternative A. Current Management .....................................................................................................................2-7
Alternative B. Our Preferred Alternative .............................................................................................................2-21
Alternative C.............................................................................................................................................................2-73
Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative for Issues Identified During the Planning Process ...2-83
Chapter 3. Description of the Affected Environment
Landscape-Level Features......................................................................................................................................3-1
Socioeconomic Environment...................................................................................................................................3-3
Refuge Administration and Resources...................................................................................................................3-5
Biological Resources ................................................................................................................................................3-9
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................4-1
Effects on Water Quality and Soils .........................................................................................................................4-1
Effects on Air Quality ..............................................................................................................................................4-4
Effects on the Local and Regional Economy.........................................................................................................4-7
Effects on Public Use Opportunities ......................................................................................................................4-8
Effects on Cultural Resources................................................................................................................................4-9
Effects on Native Wildlife and Their Habitats......................................................................................................4-9
Environmental Justice.............................................................................................................................................4-14
Cumulative Impacts.................................................................................................................................................4-16
Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity ............................................................4-18
Unavoidable Adverse Effects .................................................................................................................................4-18
Potential Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources.................................................................4-19
Chapter 5. Consultation and Coordination with Others
Public Involvement Summary.................................................................................................................................5-1
Land Conservation Partners...................................................................................................................................5-2
Rachel Carson NWR CCP Planning Team.............................................................................................................5-4
Glossary
Bibliography
Appendixes
Appendix A. Land Protection Plan..........................................................................................................................A-1
Appendix B. Resources of Concern........................................................................................................................B-1
Appendix C. Wilderness Review.............................................................................................................................C-1
Appendix D. Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations.....................................................................D-1
Appendix E. Habitat Management Plan Potential Management Prescriptions................................................E-1
Appendix F. Refuge Operations Needs System and Service Asset Maintenance Management System.......F-1
Appendix G. Staffing Charts....................................................................................................................................G-1
Appendix H. Cultural Resources Report................................................................................................................H-1
Appendix I. Privately Owned Lands Within the Acquisition Boundary.............................................................I-1
Appendix J. Breeding Landbird Survey Data.......................................................................................................J-1
Acronyms (inside back cover)
List of Tables
2.1 Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative......................................................................................2-83
3.1 Refuge Budgets from 1999-2005........................................................................................................................3-6
3.2 Rachel Carson Revenue Sharing Payments in Fiscal Year 2004...................................................................3-7
3.3 Rare Plants...........................................................................................................................................................3-11
3.4 Exemplary Natural Communities.....................................................................................................................3-11
3.5 Invasive Plant Species Found on the Refuge...................................................................................................3-19
4.1 Effects of Proposed Alternatives on Water Quality and Soils........................................................................4-3
4.2 Effects of Proposed Alternatives on Air Quality.............................................................................................4-6
4.3 Effects of Proposed Alternatives on the Local and Regional Economy.......................................................4-7
4.4 Effects of Proposed Alternatives on Public Use Opportunities.....................................................................4-8
4.5 Effects of Proposed Alternatives on Cultural Resources...............................................................................4-9
4.6 Effects of Proposed Alternatives on Native Wildlife and Their Habitats....................................................4-13
4.7 Comparison of Habitats Among the Three Alternatives based on
Approved and Proposed Land Acquisition.......................................................................................................4-14
4.8 White and Minority Populations in Maine and Two Coastal Counties..........................................................4-15
4.9 Percent of Individual Residents Living Below the Poverty Level in Two Coastal Counties in
Southern Maine...................................................................................................................................................4-15
A.1 A Summary of Lands Still in Private Ownership Within the Approved Refuge Boundary......................A-3
A2.1 Land Ownership Information for Proposed Acquisitions for the Brave Boat Harbor Division.............A-24
A2.2 Land Ownership Information for Proposed Acquisitions for the York River Division - York................A-25
A2.3 Land Ownership Information for Proposed Acquisitions for the York River Division - Eliot................A-27
A2.4 Land Ownership Information for Proposed Acquisitions for the Moody Division - Wells......................A-27
A2.5 Land Ownership Information for Proposed Acquisitions for the Upper Wells and
Mousam River Divisions - Kennebunk...........................................................................................................A-27
A2.6 Land Ownership Information for Proposed Acquisitions for the Biddeford Pool Division.....................A-28
A2.7 Land Ownership Information for Proposed Acquisitions for the Spurwink Division..............................A-31
B.1 Potential Resources of Concern for Rachel Carson NWR............................................................................B-7
B.2 Rare Plants and Exemplary Natural Communities on Rachel Carson NWR............................................B-12
B.3 High and Moderate Priority Habitats on Rachel Carson NWR...................................................................B-14
B.4 Priority Resources of Concern, Habitat Structure, and Other Benefitting
Species on Rachel Carson NWR.......................................................................................................................B-15
F.1 Proposed Projects Currently in RONS Tier 1 Datatbase (FY04) and their Inclusion in
Respective CCP Alternatives............................................................................................................................F-1
F.2 Proposed Projects Currently in RONS Tier 2 Datatbase (FY05) and their Inclusion in
Respective CCP Alternatives............................................................................................................................F-2
F.3 Proposed Projects Not Currently in the RONS Database and Their Relationship to Respective
CCP Alternatives and Goal 1..............................................................................................................................F-4
F.4 Proposed Projects Not Currently in the RONS Database and Their Relationship to Respective
CCP Alternatives and Goal 2..............................................................................................................................F-5
F.5 Proposed Projects Not Currently in the RONS Database and Their Relationship to Respective
CCP Alternatives and Goal 3..............................................................................................................................F-6
F.6 Proposed Projects Not Currently in the RONS Database and Their Relationship to Respective
CCP Alternatives and Goal 4..............................................................................................................................F-7
F.7 Proposed Projects Not Currently in the RONS Database and Their Relationship to Respective
CCP Alternatives and Goal 5..............................................................................................................................F-8
F.8 Proposed Projects Not Currently in the RONS Database and Their Relationship to Respective
CCP Alternatives and Goal 6..............................................................................................................................F-9
F.9 Projects Currently Backlogged in the Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS)
Database (FY05) for Rachel Carson NWR.......................................................................................................F-9
I.1 Privately Owned Lands Within the Acquisition Boundary for the
Upper Wells Division—Town of Kennebunk....................................................................................................I-1
I.2 Privately Owned Lands Within the Acquisition Boundary for the
Upper Wells Division—Town of Wells...............................................................................................................I-1
I.3 Privately Owned Lands Within the Acquisition Boundary for the
Brave Boat Harbor Division—Town of York....................................................................................................I-2
I.4 Privately Owned Lands Within the Acquisition Boundary for the
Brave Boat Harbor Division—Town of Kittery...............................................................................................I-2
I.5 Privately Owned Lands Within the Acquisition Boundary for the
Spurwink River Division—Town of Cape Elizabeth.......................................................................................I-3
I.6 Privately Owned Lands Within the Acquisition Boundary for the
Gooserocks Division—Town of Kennebunkport...............................................................................................I-4
I.7 Privately Owned Lands Within the Acquisition Boundary for the
Goosefare Brooks Division—Town of Old Orchard Beach.............................................................................I-4
I.8 Privately Owned Lands Within the Acquisition Boundary for the
Goosefare Brooks Division—Town od Saco......................................................................................................I-4
J.1 Breeding Landbird Frequency by Division and Refuge Relative Abundance.............................................J-1
List of Figures
1.1 The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process and its Relationship to the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.....................................................................................................1-14
3.1 Maine Tourism Activities....................................................................................................................................3-4
List of Insets
Rachel Louise Carson...............................................................................................................................................1-15
Refuge Facilities—History and Current Needs....................................................................................................2-5
Recreational Boating................................................................................................................................................2-19
Invasive Species Management................................................................................................................................2-36
“Oceans are in Crisis”...............................................................................................................................................2-44
Stormwater Pollution................................................................................................................................................2-47
New England Cottontail—Petition for Listing on the Federal Endangered Species List..............................2-52
Land Management Research Demonstration........................................................................................................2-58
Valuable Wildlife Habitat—35,000 acres in southern Maine................................................................................2-72
List of Maps
1-1 NABCI Bird Conservation Regions and Partners in Flight Physiographic Regions................................1-4
1-2 Conservation Lands............................................................................................................................................1-5
2-1 Brave Boat Harbor Division Existing and Proposed Public Use..................................................................2-24
2-2 Proposed York River Division Public Use........................................................................................................2-25
2-3 Moody Division Existing and Proposed Public Use........................................................................................2-26
2-4 Lower Wells Division Existing and Proposed Public Use..............................................................................2-27
2-5 Upper Wells Division Existing and Proposed Public Use..............................................................................2-28
2-6 Mousam River Division Existing and Proposed Public Use..........................................................................2-29
2-7 Goose Rocks Division Existing and Proposed Public Use.............................................................................2-30
2-8 Little River Division Existing and Proposed Public Use...............................................................................2-31
2-9 Biddeford Pool Division Existing and Proposed Public Use..........................................................................2-32
2-10 Goosefare Brooks Division Existing and Proposed Public Use...................................................................2-33
2-11 Spurwink River Division Existing and Proposed Public Use......................................................................2-34
A-1 Current Service Ownership and Proposed Acquisition for the Brave Boat Harbor Division..................A-17
A-2 Current Service Ownership and Proposed Acquisition for the York River Division.................................A-18
A-3 Current Service Ownership and Proposed Acquisition for the Moody Division........................................A-19
A-4 Current Service Ownership and Proposed Acquisition for the Upper Wells and
Mousam River Divisions....................................................................................................................................A-20
A-5 Current Service Ownership and Proposed Acquisition for the Biddeford Pool Division..........................A-21
A-6 Current Service Ownership and Proposed Acquisition for the Spurwink River Division........................A-22
Chapter 1
The Purpose and Need for Action
Introduction
The Purpose and Need for Action
Project Area
Service Policies and Legal Mandates Guiding the CCP
National and Regional Plans and Conservation Initiatives Guiding the CCP
Refuge Purposes and Land Acquisition History
Refuge Operational Plans (“Step-Down” Plans)
Wilderness Review
Rachel Carson Refuge Vision Statement
Refuge Goals
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
Issues and Opportunities
Plan Amendment and Revision













Piping plover
Richard Kuzminski
Chapter 1. The Purpose and Need for Action 1-
Introduction
This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Rachel
Carson National Wildlife Refuge combines two documents required by Federal law: a CCP,
required by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105–57;
111 STAT. 1253); and, an EA, required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, we, our) will issue a final decision
based on this document to guide our management decisions and actions on the refuge over
the next 15 years.
This draft CCP/EA has five chapters and ten appendixes. Chapter 1, “The Purpose and
Need for Action,” sets the stage for chapters 2 through 4. It
 describes the purpose and need for a CCP for the Rachel Carson NWR,
 identifies national and regional mandates and plans that influenced this document,
 highlights the purposes for which the refuge was established and its land acquisition
history,
 identifies the status of refuge management plans,
 presents the vision and goals for the refuge,
 explains the planning process used in developing this document, and
 describes the issues addressed during the planning process.
Chapter 2, “Description of the Alternatives,” presents three management alternatives,
including current management, (the no-action alternative), and the Service-preferred
alternative. Each offers different strategies for meeting goals and objectives and
responding to issues.
Chapter 3, “Description of the Affected Environment,” describes the physical, biological,
and human environment.
Chapter 4, “Environmental Consequences,” evaluates the environmental consequences of
implementing each of the three proposed management alternatives.
Chapter 5, “Consultation and Coordination with Others,” summarizes the involvement of
the public and our conservation partners in the planning process, and lists the planning
team.
Ten appendixes provide additional documentation and reference information used in
compiling this document.
The Purpose and Need for Action
We propose to develop a CCP for the Rachel Carson refuge that best achieves its purposes,
vision, and goals; contributes to the National Wildlife Refuge System mission; adheres
to Service policies and mandates; addresses significant issues; and, incorporates sound
principles of fish and wildlife management.
This draft CCP/EA evaluates three alternatives or different ways of achieving the criteria
above. We designed into each alternative the potential to be fully developed into a final
The Purpose and Need for Action
Project Area
1-
CCP. Our analysis includes predicting the socioeconomic, physical, cultural, and biological
benefits and consequences of implementing each alternative. Chapter 2 describes our
proposed action in detail as alternative B, “The Service-Preferred Alternative.”
Developing a CCP with partner and public involvement is vital for the future management
of every national wildlife refuge. The purpose of a CCP is to provide the Rachel Carson
refuge with strategic management direction for the next 15 years, by
 providing a clear statement of desired future conditions for habitat, wildlife, facilities,
visitor services, and staffing,
 providing State of Maine agencies, refuge neighbors, visitors, and conservation
partners a clear understanding 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 refuge staffing, operations, maintenance, and budget requests.
The present need to develop the CCP for the Rachel Carson refuge is manifold. First, the
refuge Improvement Act requires that all national wildlife refuges have CCPs in place
by 2012. Second, the refuge lacks a master plan to accomplish the actions noted above in
an environment that has changed dramatically since the refuge was first established. For
example, significant development pressure and population growth in coastal Maine are
impacting the integrity of refuge habitats, and staffing and visitation has increased. Third,
we have developed strong partnerships, vital to our continued successes, with land trusts,
watershed associations, and other conservation groups throughout the 11-town refuge
region. Our responsibility is to clearly develop our priorities through this plan. Finally, we
need a CCP to guide us in future habitat management and land protection that promotes
the conservation of significant coastal ecosystems and Federal trust species.
Our planning process allows State of Maine agencies, the public, and our conservation
partners to engage in resolving management issues and concerns. All of these reasons
clearly underscore the need for the strategic direction a CCP provides.
Project Area
The Rachel Carson refuge lies in the heart of the Gulf of Maine watershed, in a region of
great biological diversity (map 1–1). The refuge harbors estuaries that provide nurseries
for many marine fish. Its tidal rivers provide passage to upstream spawning areas for
anadromous fish. Its diverse aquatic and upland habitats support breeding, migrating and
wintering birds, and provide essential habitat for nationally threatened and endangered
species. Because it lies at the mouth of more than a dozen tidal rivers and their watersheds,
the refuge sits at a critical place in an increasingly developed, fragmented region where
those rivers meet the sea.
The refuge stretches along 50 miles of coastline in York and Cumberland counties in
southern Maine (map 1–2). Our project analysis area includes lands owned by the Service
as well as lands evaluated for future Service acquisition.
Chapter 1. The Purpose and Need for Action
Chapter 1. The Purpose and Need for Action 1-
The 5,293-acre refuge has 10 divisions between Kittery and Cape Elizabeth: approximately
35 percent tidal, 10 percent freshwater wetlands and 55 percent uplands. Tidal habitats
include beach, dune, dune grassland, river, rocky shore, estuarine, bay and salt marsh.
Freshwater wetlands include cattail marsh, bog, emergent scrub-shrub wetlands, pocket
swamps, red maple swamps and floodplain forest. Most of the upland forests consist of
mixed oak and pine forest; however, hemlock, spruce and pitch pine stands as well as
hickory and maple forests also grow here. Viburnums, winterberry, blueberry, serviceberry,
Virginia rose and male berry compose much of the shrub understory. Other upland habitats
are composed of grassland units and thicket units. Habitats are quite diverse, containing
elements from the more southern oak-pine forests and the softwood forests of the north.
Those two community types blend in Southern Maine, creating a wealth of biodiversity.
Service Policies and Legal Mandates Guiding the CCP
This section presents hierarchically, from the national to the local level, highlights of the
laws, Service policy, regulations, and resource plans and conservation initiatives that
directly influenced the development of this draft CCP/EA.
 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Its Mission
The Service, as part of the Department of Interior, administers the National Wildlife refuge
System. The Service mission is
“Working with others, to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife and plants and their
habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.”
Congress entrusts the Service with such conservation and protection national resources
as migratory birds and fish, Federal-listed endangered and threatened species, inter-jurisdictional
fishes, wetlands, certain marine mammals, and national wildlife refuges. The
Service also enforces Federal wildlife laws and international treaties on importing and
exporting wildlife, assists States with their fish and wildlife programs, and helps other
countries develop wildlife conservation programs.
The Service manual contains the standing and continuing directives for implementing those
authorities, responsibilities, and activities. The manual can be accessed at http://www.fws.
gov.directives/direct.html.
Special Service directives that affect the rights of citizens or the authorities of other
agencies are published separately in the Code of Federal Regulations, and are not
duplicated in the Service manual. Most of the current regulations that pertain to the
Service are issued in 50 CFR parts 1-99. The CFR can be accessed at http://www.access.
gpo.gov/nara/cfr/index.html.
 The National Wildlife Refuge System and its Mission
The refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands set aside specifically to protect
fish and wildlife populations and habitats. It began in 1903, when President Theodore
Roosevelt designated 3-acre Pelican Island, a pelican and heron rookery in Florida, as
a bird sanctuary. Today, more than 540 national wildlife refuges encompass more than
93 million acres of lands and waters in all 50 states and several U.S. territories. At least 40
million visitors hunt, fish, observe and photograph wildlife, or participate in environmental
education and interpretive activities on refuges across the nation each year.
When Congress passed the refuge Improvement Act in 1997, it established a unifying
mission for the refuge System, a new process for determining compatible public use
Service Policies and Legal Mandates Guiding the CCP
1-
Project Area
Chapter 1. The Purpose and Need for Action
1-5
Project Area
Chapter 1. The Purpose and Need for Action
Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge - Map 1-2
MAINE
NEW HAMPSHIRE
RC NWR Ownership
RC NWR Easement
Proposed Expansion Areas
Other Conserved Lands
0 2 4 8 12 16
Miles Produced by USFWS R5 CSDS, 5/11/05. For planning purposes only.
K:\refuges\rachelcarson\ccp\maps\Conserved_Lands\Con_Land_Tab_45.mxd
¦
1:170,561
¹
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Conserved Lands
Mt. Agamenticus
Scarborough Marsh
Wells NEER
Chapter 1. The Purpose and Need for Action 1-7
activities on refuges, and the requirement to prepare a CCP for each refuge in the
System. The act states that, first and foremost, the refuge System must focus on wildlife
conservation. It further states that the refuge System mission, coupled with the purpose(s)
for which each refuge was established, will provide the principal management direction on
that refuge.
The mission of the refuge System is
“To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management,
and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their
habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of
Americans.” (P.L. 105–57; 111 STAT. 1253)
The refuge Improvement Act also declares that all existing or proposed refuge uses must
be compatible with the refuge purpose and consistent with public safety (see appendix D).
Each refuge manager determines the compatibility of an activity by evaluating its potential
effect on refuge resources and determining whether it supports the refuge System mission
and does not interfere with or detract from refuge purposes and goals. The act designated
six priority wildlife-dependent public uses that are to receive enhanced consideration in
refuge planning: hunting, fishing, environmental education and interpretation, and wildlife
observation and photography.
The Refuge System manual provides a central reference for policy governing the operation
and management of the Refuge System not covered by the Service manual, including
technical information on implementing refuge polices and guidelines. It can be reviewed at
refuge headquarters.
 Fulfilling the Promise
A yearlong process involving teams of Service employees who examined the Refuge System
within the framework of Wildlife and Habitat, People and Leadership culminated with
“Fulfilling the Promise: The National Wildlife Refuge System” (USFWS 1999), a vision
for the National Wildlife Refuge System. The first-ever Refuge System Conference in
Keystone, Colorado in October 1998, was attended by every refuge manager in the country,
other Service employees, and scores of conservation organizations. Many “Promises
Teams” formed to develop strategies for implementing the 42 recommendations of the
conference report. Information from such teams as Wildlife and Habitat, Goals and
Objectives, Strategic Growth of the Refuge System, Invasive Species, and Inventory and
Monitoring helped guide the development of the goals, strategies and actions in this draft
CCP/EA.
 Refuge System Planning Policy
This policy establishes 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 which, when implemented, will achieve refuge purposes;
help fulfill the Refuge System mission; maintain and, where appropriate, restore the
ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; help achieve the goals of the
National Wilderness Preservation System; and meet other mandates [Fish and Wildlife
Service Manual (602 FW 1,2,3)].
 Maintaining Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy
This policy provides guidance on maintaining or restoring the biological integrity, diversity,
and environmental health of the Refuge System including the protection of a broad
Service Policies and Legal Mandates Guiding the CCP
1-8
spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found in refuge ecosystems. It provides
refuge managers with a process for evaluating the best management direction to prevent
the additional degradation of environmental conditions and to restore lost or severely
degraded environmental components. It also provides guidelines for dealing with external
threats to the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of a refuge and its
ecosystem (601 FW 3). See appendix B for more details on the Integrity Policy, how we
used it to determine priority resources of concern, and how that lead to the development of
habitat goals and objectives at the Rachel Carson refuge.
 Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy
This policy provides a national framework and procedure for refuge managers to follow
when deciding if uses are appropriate on a refuge. It also clarifies and expands on the
compatibility policy (603 FW 2.10D), which describes when refuge managers should deny
a proposed use without determining compatibility. When we find a use is appropriate,
we must then determine if the use is compatible before we allow it on a refuge. This
policy applies to all proposed and existing uses in the Refuge System only when we have
jurisdiction over the use and does not apply to refuge management activities or situations
where reserved rights or legal mandates provide we must allow certain uses (603 FW
1). Appendix D further describes the Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy and describes its
relationship to the CCP process.
 Compatibility Policy
Federal law and Service policy provide the direction and planning framework to protect
the Refuge System from incompatible or harmful human activities and ensure that
Americans can enjoy Refuge System lands and waters. The Refuge Improvement
Act is the key legislation regarding management of public uses and compatibility. The
compatibility requirements of the Refuge Improvement Act were adopted in the USFWS
Final Compatibility Regulations and Final Compatibility Policy, published October 18, 2000
(Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 202, pp. 62458-62496). This Compatibility Rule changed or
modified Service regulations contained in chapter 50, parts 25, 26, and 29 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (USFWS 2000b). The compatibility determinations for Rachel Carson
refuge can be found in appendix D along with additional information on the process. To
view the policy and regulations online, visit http://policy.fws.gov/library/00fr62483.pdf.
 Wildlife-Dependent Recreation Policy
The Improvement Act defines and establishes that compatible wildlife dependent
recreational uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and
environmental education and interpretation) are the priority general public uses of the
Refuge System and will receive enhanced and priority consideration in refuge planning
and management over other general public uses. The Wildlife Dependent Recreation Policy
explains how we will provide visitors with opportunities for those priority public uses on
units of the Refuge System and how we will facilitate these uses. We are incorporating this
policy as Part 605, chapters 1–7, of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.
 Other Legal Mandates
Although Service and Refuge System policy and the purpose(s) of each refuge provide the
foundation for its management, our administration of national wildlife refuges conforms
consistent with a variety of other Federal laws, executive orders, treaties, interstate
compacts, and regulations pertaining to the conservation and protection of natural and
cultural resources. The Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the USFWS lists
them. It can be accessed at http://laws.fws.gov/lawsdigest/indx.html.
Chapter 1. The Purpose and Need for Action
Service Policies and Legal Mandates Guiding the CCP
1-9
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, evaluates compliance with the Clean Water
Act, Clean Air Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Archeological Resources
Protection Act, and the Endangered Species Act. This draft CCP/EA is written to fulfill
compliance with NEPA.
National and Regional Plans and Conservation Initiatives
Guiding the CCP
 North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP)
This plan outlines the strategies among the United States, Canada, and Mexico to restore
waterfowl populations through habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement, and calls
on the partners to manage sustainable landscapes, consult and cooperate, and use strong
biological foundations to make decisions. Its implementation is accomplished at the regional
level in 14 habitat Joint Venture partnerships and 3 species Joint Ventures: Arctic goose,
black duck, and sea duck. Our project area lies in the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, which
includes all the Atlantic Flyway states from Maine to Florida and Puerto Rico. Five priority
focus areas are identified for Maine. Four are coastal areas, and consist of 51,831 acres of
wetlands and associated uplands in need of protection and management. Most of the refuge
lies in Maine’s West Coast Focus Area. A map of focus areas in Maine can be viewed at
http://www.acjv.org.
The waterfowl goal for the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture is
“Protect and manage priority wetland habitats for migration, wintering, and production
of waterfowl, with special consideration to black ducks, and to benefit other wildlife in the
joint venture area.”
The Black Duck Joint Venture Plan is also relevant to our project. Black ducks use the
refuge during fall migration. The Final Draft—Strategic Plan (April 1993) can be accessed
at http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bdjv/bdjvback.htm.
We used these plans as we developed our goals and objectives for waterfowl and their
habitats, and for land protection.
 North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (Version 1, 2002)
This plan forms an independent partnership among individuals and institutions with the
interest and responsibility for conserving waterbirds and their habitats. It is just one
element of a multifaceted conservation program. The primary goal of the plan is to ensure
that the distribution, diversity, and abundance of populations and habitats of breeding,
migratory, and non-breeding waterbirds are sustained or restored throughout the lands
and waters of North America, Central America, and the Caribbean. The plan provides
a framework for conserving and managing colonially nesting water-dependent birds.
In addition, it will facilitate continent-wide planning and monitoring, national, state, or
provincial conservation action, regional coordination, and local habitat protection and
management. Regional planning information is being prepared for the Mid-Atlantic New
England Working Group.
We used the plan in developing our objectives, actions and strategies for protecting and
managing waterbirds. It can be accessed at http://www.nawcp.org. Additional information is
available at http://www.fws.gov/birds/waterbirds/manem/index.html.
National and Regional Plans and Conservation Initiatives Guiding the CCP
Chapter 1. The Purpose and Need for Action
1-10
 U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (2004 Update) and Northern Atlantic
Regional Shorebird Plan (Draft 2002)
This plan is a partnership being undertaken throughout the United States to ensure that
stable, self-sustaining populations of all shorebird species are restored and protected.
Collaborators include local, state, and Federal agencies, non-governmental organizations,
business-related sectors, researchers, educators, and policy makers. The plan was closely
coordinated with NAWMP and Joint Venture professionals, as well as the Partners In
Flight and North American Waterbird Plan teams as they concurrently developed their
revised national plans. These experts helped set conservation goals for each region of the
country, identified important habitat and research needs, and proposed education and
outreach programs to increase public awareness of shorebirds and the threats they face.
The partnerships responsible for developing the plan remain active, and are working to
improve and implement the plan’s many recommendations.
The U.S. Shorebird Plan identifies three primary objectives.
1. Development of a standardized, scientifically-sound system for monitoring and
studying shorebird populations that will provide practical information to researchers
and land managers for shorebird habitat conservation
2. Identification of the principles and practices upon which local, regional and national
management plans can effectively integrate shorebird habitat conservation with
multiple species strategies
3. Design of an integrated strategy for increasing public awareness and information
concerning wetlands and shorebirds
Regional plans, such as the North Atlantic Regional Shorebird Plan, are being developed
as part of the overall strategy. The North Atlantic Plan is in draft, but provides detailed
information on shorebird species of high conservation concern in the region. Once
completed, the plan will enhance shorebird diversity and individual species’ populations
through regional population, habitat, research, education goals and objectives, and identify
specific management needs and projects for implementation.
We used the national and regional plans in developing our Species and Habitats of Concern
List (appendix B). The national plan can be accessed at http://shorebirdplan.fws.gov/
USShorebird.htm. The website for accessing the regional plan is http://shorebirdplan.fws.
gov/RegionalShorebird/RegionalPlans.htm. Additionally, the Program for International
Shorebird Monitoring includes sites in and near the Rachel Carson refuge. See http://www.
shorebirdworld.org/fromthefield/PRISM/PRISM1.htm for more information.
 Partners In Flight Landbird Conservation Plans
In 1990, Partners in Flight (PIF) was conceived as a voluntary, international coalition of
government agencies, conservation organizations, academic institutions, private industry,
and other citizens dedicated to reversing the population declines of bird species and
“keeping common birds common.” The foundation of PIF’s long-term strategy for bird
conservation is a series of scientifically based bird conservation plans, using physiographic
provinces as the planning units.
Rachel Carson refuge falls in PIF Physiographic Area 9—Southern New England. Area 9
covers parts of northern New Jersey, southern New York including Long Island, most of
Connecticut, all of Rhode Island, most of eastern Massachusetts, the southeastern corner
of New Hampshire, and south coastal Maine (map 1–1). This area has experienced the
National and Regional Plans and Conservation Initiatives Guiding the CCP
Chapter 1. The Purpose and Need for Action
1-11
greatest amount of urbanization of any part of the Northeast, including the entire Boston—
New York corridor. Urbanization and associated human activities severely threaten
remaining high-priority habitats, especially maritime marshes and dunes, relict grasslands
and mature deciduous forests. Forest fragmentation, which is not a major issue in most
parts of the Northeast, is a severe factor threatening forest bird populations. Urban land
now covers roughly one-third of the physiographic area. Remaining forests are a mixture
of oak-hickory and other hardwoods, white pine-red pine forest, and pine-oak woodlands or
barrens (Dettmers and Rosenberg 2000).
The goal of each PIF plan is to ensure long-term maintenance of healthy populations of
native birds, primarily non-game birds. Within each physiographic area, the plans rank bird
species according to their conservation priority, describe desired habitat conditions, develop
biological objectives, and recommend conservation measures. Habitat loss, population
trends, and vulnerability of a species and its habitats to regional and local threats all factor
into the priority ranking. Many of the top-ranked species in the PIF plan either breed or
migrate through the Rachel Carson refuge. The PIF plans can be accessed at http://www.
partnersinflight.org.
The North American Landbird Conservation Plan (Rich, et al. 2004) identifies a suite of
Watch List and Stewardship Species that represent the landbirds of greatest continental
importance for conservation action. Many of those are found on the Rachel Carson refuge
and other refuges in the Northeast.
 Executive Order 13158 on Marine Protected Areas
The Order requires the Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce to
develop “a scientifically-based, comprehensive national system of Marine Protected Areas
(MPA) representing diverse marine ecosystems, and the Nation’s natural and cultural
resources.” An inventory of potential MPAs was completed, and the refuge, due in part to
its co-location with the Wells National Estuarine Research reserve, is on that list.
 North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI)
The NABCI brings together the landbird (PIF), shorebird, waterbird, and waterfowl plans
into a coordinated effort to protect and restore all native bird populations and their habitats
in North America. All bird conservation partnerships reduce redundancy in the structure,
planning and implementation of conservation projects. NABCI uses Bird Conservation
Regions (BCRs) to guide landscape-scale, science-based approaches to conserving birds
and their habitats (map 1–1).
Rachel Carson NWR lies in the New England Mid Atlantic Bird Conservation Region
(BCR 30). This CCP uses the priorities set forth in the PIF Physiographic Area 9 Plan, a
subsection of BCR 30, along with priorities of other bird conservation plans. Individual bird
conservation plans also help guide bird monitoring, restoration, and habitat management
on the refuge. A meeting among conservation partners for BCR 30 was held in December
2004, resulting in consensus on the highest priority species, habitats, geographic areas and
conservation actions. The refuge sits on the northern edge of BCR 30, close to BCR 14.
 Regional Wetlands Concept Plan—Emergency Wetlands Resources Act
(1990)
In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act to promote the
conservation of our Nation’s wetlands. The act directed the Department of Interior to
develop a National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan identifying the location and types
of wetlands that should receive priority attention for acquisition by Federal and state
National and Regional Plans and Conservation Initiatives Guiding the CCP
Chapter 1. The Purpose and Need for Action
1-12
agencies using Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriations. In 1990, our Northeast
Region completed a Regional Wetlands Concept Plan to provide more specific information
about wetlands resources in the Northeast. A total of 850 wetland sites were identified for
protection because of their value, scarcity, and vulnerability. In Maine, 71 wetland sites
were identified, with 34 sites (43,445 acres) located within 10 miles of the coastline. We used
that information as we developed our land protection strategies.
 Piping Plover Recovery Plan
Rachel Carson refuge follows recovery plan guidelines for the management of the federal-listed
threatened Atlantic Coast piping plover (Charadrius melodus) (USFWS 1996a).
The refuge manages multiple sites for piping plover, and works with partners to manage
off-refuge sites.
 Tern Management Plan
The Tern Management Plan provides historic background, a review of factors limiting
populations, life history information, and techniques for managing and monitoring the tern
species nesting from New York to Newfoundland (USFWS 2000). It also identifies research
needs and assesses the size and distribution of tern populations in the region. Primarily,
it focuses on coastal populations of common, Arctic, roseate, and least terns. It provides
specific management techniques to help achieve the goals set forth in several previous
planning approaches that have been developed across the Northeast region. We used this
plan in developing our tern objectives and strategies.
 Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife: Maine’s Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy
In fall 2001, Congress established a new State Wildlife Grants program that provided funds
to state wildlife agencies for the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats. Each
state is charged with developing a comprehensive wildlife conservation plan by October
2005. As mandated by the SWG program, state fish and wildlife agencies are determining
which species and habitats are in greatest need of conservation. Rachel Carson refuge staff
consulted with Maine Inland Fisheries and Wildlife staff to consider opportunities for the
refuge in conserving species identified in Maine’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation
Strategy. We included the state’s species priorities in our “Potential Resources of Concern”
table in appendix B.
Refuge Purposes and Land Acquisition History
Rachel Carson refuge was established to preserve migratory bird habitat and waterfowl
migration routes associated with southern Maine’s coastal estuaries. During the mid-
1800s, the estuarine habitats teemed with wildlife. The fishing industry supported many
people, and commercial hunters made their living from the wildlife that frequented the
marshes. Spurred by the arrival of the railroad in 1842, recreational use of the Maine Coast
increased in the 19th and 20th centuries. Thousands of visitors came by train, trolley, and
later, automobile. Seasonal and vacation homes built on the edge of the salt marsh quickly
followed. By the 1950s and early 1960s, land was at a premium for prospective landowners
and individuals and groups interested in protecting natural resources.
On December 16, 1966, Congress established the Coastal Maine National Wildlife Refuge
under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. In a formal dedication
ceremony on June 27, 1970, the refuge was renamed in honor of scientist and author
Rachel Carson, who spent much of her life along the Maine Coast. During the mid-1970s,
Chapter 1. The Purpose and Need for Action
Refuge Purposes and Land Acquisition History
1-13
the refuge acquired 4,000 acres, and has expanded its boundary several times over the
years to protect coastal salt marshes from encroaching development, and thereby protect
vital wildlife habitat. Its 10 divisions stretch 50 miles along the coast, and share more than
5,000 acres with the municipalities of Cape Elizabeth, Scarborough, Old Orchard Beach,
Saco, Biddeford, Kennebunkport, Kennebunk, Wells, Ogunquit, York, and Kittery.
Rachel Carson refuge was established under the authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act for “use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for
migratory birds” 16 USC 715d, Migratory Bird Conservation Act. Other authorities
include:
“ ...suitable for - - - 1) incidental fish and wildlife oriented recreational development, 2)
protection of natural resources, 3) conservation of endangered or threatened species
...” 16 USC section 460k-1 Refuge Recreation Act
“ …conservation of wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they
provide to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory
bird treaties and conventions…” 16 USC Section 13901(b) 100 Stat 3583 Emergency
Wetlands Resources Act of 1986.
“…for the development, advancement, management, conservation and protection of fish
and wildlife resources ..” 16 USC Section 742f(a)(1) Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956
“ ... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its
activities and services” 16 USC Section 742f(b)(1) Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956
The refuge has been very successful over the past two decades in acquiring new lands
to meet conservation priorities for the Refuge System. During that period over 2,486
acres have been acquired representing a financial commitment of $20 million dollars. This
consistent support in land protection provides a strong indication that the refuge will meet
habitat protection goals.
Refuge Operational Plans (“Step-Down” Plans)
The Service Manual, Part 602, Chapter 4, “Refuge Planning Policy,” lists more than 25 step-down
management plans that are generally required on refuges. Those plans contain
specific strategies and implementation schedules for achieving refuge goals and objectives.
Some plans require annual revisions; others are revised on a 5- to10-year schedule. Some
require additional NEPA analysis, public involvement, and compatibility determinations
before they can be implemented. We provide below the current status of step-down plans
needed for the refuge, and incorporate by reference those now up-to-date into this draft
CCP/EA.
Plans up-to-date
 Fire Management Plan, 1997 (includes prescribed fire and wildfire management
direction; annual burn plans are also completed)
 Continuity of Operations Plan, 2004
 Hunt Plan, 1990
 Sport Fishing Plan, 2000
Chapter 1. The Purpose and Need for Action
Refuge Operational Plans (“Step-Down” Plans)
1-14
Plans being prepared or now in draft form
 Land Protection Plan (LPP)
 Habitat Management Plan (HMP)
Plans that will need to be completed
 Inventory and Monitoring Plan (IMP)
 Population Monitoring Plan
 Disease Prevention and Control Plan
 Visitor Services Plan
 Law Enforcement Plan
 Integrated Pest Management Plan
 Cultural Resources Management Plan
 Fisheries Resources Management Plan
 Safety Plan
 Water Rights Plan
 Pollution Control Plan
 Compliance Requirements
Wilderness Review
We conducted a Wilderness Review of the refuge in November 2004. Humans have
influenced this region for more than 400 years, most recently with dense settlements of
roads and houses. As a result, neither the lands that compose the current, approved refuge
acquisition boundary, nor the lands within the preliminary project proposal, are suitable
for designation as wilderness. We have concluded that none of the wilderness inventory
areas at the refuge meet the minimum criteria defined by the Wilderness Act to qualify as
wilderness study areas; and, that no further investigation into wilderness designation is
needed. For more details on the wilderness review, see appendix C.
Rachel Carson Refuge Vision Statement
Our eponym, Rachel Carson, inspired our vision, which is defined by the mission of the
Refuge System. As champions of Rachel Carson’s principles, and in recognition of the
connectedness of all living things, we are committed to finding reasonable accommodation
for the needs of humans and wildlife. Within 15 years, Rachel Carson refuge will have
protected 14,684 acres of habitat to benefit trust resources.
Chapter 1. The Purpose and Need for Action
Wilderness Review
1-15
Refuge Goals
We developed these goals after consideration of refuge purposes, the Service and Refuge
System missions, our vision, and the mandates, plans, and conservation initiatives
described above. These are intentionally broad, descriptive statements of purpose. They
highlight elements of our vision statement to be emphasized in future refuge management.
The biological goals take precedence, but otherwise, the goals are not presented in any
particular order.
Goal 1 Perpetuate the biological integrity and diversity of coastal habitats to sustain
native wildlife and plant communities, including species of conservation concern.
Goal 2 Perpetuate the biological integrity and diversity of freshwater habitats to sustain
native wildlife and plant communities, including species of conservation concern.
Goal 3 Perpetuate the biological integrity and diversity of upland habitats to sustain
native wildlife and plant communities, including species of conservation concern.
Goal 4 Develop the Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge as an outstanding center
for research and demonstration emphasizing land management techniques for
restoring and sustaining healthy estuarine ecosystems in concert with the national
Land Management Research Demonstration (LMRD) program.
Goal 5 Increase appreciation and stewardship of coastal Maine wildlife and their habitats
by providing positive wildlife-dependent experiences for refuge visitors.
Goal 6 Foster off-refuge cooperative actions and partnerships to promote and further
refuge goals.
Refuge Goals
Chapter 1. The Purpose and Need for Action
Rachel Louise Carson
writer, scientist, ecologist
(1907–1964)
Rachel Carson began a 15-year career with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
in 1936 as an aquatic biologist, and rose to become Editor-in-Chief of all
publications for the Service. With the success of her second book, The Sea
Around Us, she was able to resign from the Service and purchase a cottage
on Southport Island, where she researched its beaches and tide pools for The
Edge of the Sea.
Rachel Carson wrote about the interconnectedness of all living things; each
species has its own ties with others, and all are related to the earth. This
is the message of Silent Spring and the earth-sea trilogy. She simply and
convincingly explained the connections between humans and all creatures of
the earth. Persevering under industry and government pressure to abandon
her research, in Silent Spring she linked the unrestrained use of post-World
War II chemical pesticides with their fearsome biological consequences. That book is also credited with
launching the modern environmental movement.
In formal recognition of her achievements, Congress renamed and dedicated the former Coastal Maine
National Wildlife Refuge in her honor on June 27, 1970.
1-16
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
Effective conservation usually begins with effective community involvement. To ensure that
our future management of the refuge will reflect the issues, concerns, and opportunities
expressed by the public, we used a variety of public involvement techniques.
 An Early Planning Effort
 We developed and kept updating mailing lists of refuge neighbors, friends, professional
contacts, and others for information sharing and updates about this CCP.
 In May and June 1998, refuge staff held a series of morning coffees, inviting visitors
to discuss current refuge operations and the planning process. We sent four press
releases about the CCP to 15 newspapers in Maine and New Hampshire. Local public
access cable stations also ran notices. The York County Coast Star, southern Maine's
primary local newspaper, raised public awareness by publishing a long article about our
refuge planning. We designed and distributed leaflets about the morning coffees and
our upcoming Issues Workbook.
 In summer 1999, we distributed to the public 500 copies of a 12-page Issues Workbook,
the backbone of this plan’s important public participation component. The workbook
provided background information about the planning project and a means for
interested citizens to share their concerns and thoughts on important refuge issues. A
refuge volunteer recorded and tallied the responses in the more than 100 workbooks
returned. In July 1999, we sent to our CCP mailing list an update summarizing the
responses, and distributed it from the refuge.
 We also held several information-gathering workshops in 1999. They included a
gathering of the Extended Planning Team in March; a Public Use and Community
Goals meeting in June; and, a Biological Resources meeting in June. Fifteen
stakeholder representatives gathered at our facilitated all-day Alternatives Workshop
in August. refuge staff and 10 observers, including congressional representatives and
Service administrators, assisted participants with goal setting in the topical areas of
wildlife, community, public use, and water quality. We mailed a complete summary of
the comments and the materials the workshop generated to participants and observers
soon after.
 Refuge planning team members met several times per month to synthesize information
and prepare the draft CCP, and briefed the Regional Office in September 1999.
Additional updates were provided to the Regional Office in 2001 and 2003. Other staff
commitments delayed further work on the draft CCP until 2004.
 Our Recent Planning Effort
The planning process was restarted in the summer of 2004. This coincided with the
development of a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) that lays the biological foundation
for managing habitats, wildlife, and plants on the refuge. We also considered the refuge
role in the larger network of conservation lands in southern Maine. Habitat management
objectives and strategies were determined for lands currently in refuge ownership using
updated vegetation maps prepared by Sewall, Inc. in 2004. The Service evaluated lands
proposed for acquisition using National Land Cover Data (NLCD) and a GIS watershed
habitat analysis by the USFWS Gulf of Maine Coastal Program.
The core planning team included the refuge staff, regional office planning and GIS staff,
a regional biologist, and a representative from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
Chapter 1. The Purpose and Need for Action
1-17
and Wildlife. Our staff continually gathers input from partners at management and
conservation meetings and workshops.
As part of the planning process, the refuge initiated a wilderness review (see appendix C)
of existing refuge lands as required by Service refuge planning policy. The compatibility
determinations (described in appendix D) were also reviewed and updated.
The diagram below depicts the steps in the comprehensive conservation planning process
and their relationship to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance.
Chapter 1. The Purpose and Need for Action
Figure 1.1. The Comprehensive
Conservation Planning process
and its relationship to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Issues and Opportunities
From the Issues Workbook, public and focus group meetings, and planning team
discussions, we developed a list of issues, opportunities, or any other item requiring a
management decision. We concentrated further on the issues, as these drive the analysis
and comparison of alternatives.
1. Planning issues formed the basis for the development and comparison of different
management alternatives. A range of opinions on how to resolve these significant issues
and meet objectives generated the different alternatives presented in chapter 2. These
issues are resolved differently among the alternatives.
2. Other issues and management concerns were identified by refuge staff as important to
address under management alternatives in chapter 2.
Issues and Opportunities
1-18
 Planning Issues
The following issues were generated by the planning team or brought to our attention by
our State or other partners, or the public, during scoping activities. The issues matrix in
chapter 2 shows how we deal with these issues through actions and strategies in the three
alternatives.
1. How will we provide habitat to protect trust species?
Federal law charges the Service with sustaining populations of migratory birds,
anadromous fish, and species listed as threatened or endangered, collectively referred
to as “trust species”. In response, the Service seeks to provide habitat to support the life
cycles of these species. The Service and its partners who protect wildlife habitat--State
agencies, local land trusts, the Maine Audubon Society, and national organizations including
The Nature Conservancy and Trust for Public Land--have identified thousands of acres
of unprotected habitat in southern coastal Maine that support 43 trust species whose
populations are declining. In the preferred action, the Service seeks to protect an additional
5,558 acres of important salt marsh, tidal rivers, shrublands, freshwater wetlands, riparian
areas, forests, and grasslands as part of the Rachel Carson NWR (See appendix A).
Also, the refuge is actively engaged in watershed and landscape-scale initiatives with
conservation partners to support additional land conservation in this region of Maine.
Generally, the lands identified for protection are large blocks that provide habitat for the
declining species as well as a diverse array of other wildlife. Coastal habitats are in smaller
blocks, due to heavy settlement and the paucity of large undeveloped tracts. All these lands
proposed for acquisition are vulnerable to changes in land use that threaten to degrade,
fragment, or eliminate their wildlife values.
2. How will we manage fish and wildlife populations and habitats?
Rachel Carson refuge hosts large numbers of resident and migrant wildlife and plant
species. Some of them, including the federal-listed endangered piping plover, Nelson’s and
saltmarsh sharp-tailed sparrows, and the New England cottontail, among others, depend
on the refuge for breeding, feeding, or resting habitat. The refuge assesses and monitors
the abundance and distribution of wildlife populations through targeted field surveys such
as annual breeding bird surveys or through research by university and state partners.
Wildlife species that are sensitive to human disturbance or predation, such as piping plover,
receive targeted management including seasonal beach closures and predator control.
Some habitats are actively managed to provide a range of habitat conditions necessary to
support the suite of native wildlife that occur on the refuge. The habitat goals, objectives,
and strategies described in chapter 2 and in more detail in the Habitat Management Plan
provide a framework for guiding habitat and wildlife management decisions.
3. How will we ensure the integrity of water quality and quantity to protect aquatic-dependent
species?
All species, including humans, require water to stay alive. Water is at the center of most
management decisions at the Rachel Carson NWR— protecting water quantity and quality
to sustain healthy populations of fish, wildlife, and plants that depend on aquatic habitats.
Nearly one-third of North America’s bird species use wetlands sometime during their
lifecycle, many of these use the refuge sometime during the year. Freshwater, estuarine,
and marine wetlands are considered some of the most productive ecosystems in the world
and all occur on the refuge.
Despite great improvements in water quality in Maine’s rivers and other aquatic
environments, our understanding of the dynamics of these ecosystems is limited. The
Issues and Opportunities
Chapter 1. The Purpose and Need for Action
1-19
increasing land fragmentation and developments in close proximity to wetlands in coastal
Maine adds uncertainty to the health and sustainability of aquatic habitats for wildlife
and humans. Baseline information is needed on the quantity and quality of water flowing
through the refuge and the habitat requirements of the aquatic species (e.g., anadromous
fish) that depend on these waters. The refuge will partner with watershed groups and
government entities to develop and implement water monitoring initiatives as well as to
assess the impacts of land uses (e.g., stormwater runoff) on aquatic systems. The refuge
also monitors and controls invasive aquatic species where feasible.
4. How will we build community partnerships to protect and manage coastal wildlife
habitats?
We believe that Rachel Carson NWR has more neighbors than any other national wildlife
refuge in the System. The refuge has 10 divisions, and owns land in 11 towns: Kittery,
York, Ogunquit, Wells, Kennebunk, Kennebunkport, Biddeford, Saco, Old Orchard
Beach, Scarborough, and Cape Elizabeth. Our opportunity to work with municipalities is
expanding. To achieve its mission, the refuge must be and is engaged in land use and public
use decisions by neighboring municipalities and conservation groups.
We have established many valuable partnerships working to protect wildlife and their
habitats in southern and coastal Maine. Southern Maine has been continuously settled
since 1630, and is now experiencing record growth. The refuge lends its technical expertise
to landscape-scale and watershed initiatives on identifying, protecting, and managing
important wildlife habitats. Land protection by the refuge and by its conservation partners
contributes to the quality of life, by controlling the demand for town services such as road
maintenance, schools, and fire and police protection, providing places for the public to
understand and appreciate their natural surroundings, and protecting water quality.
5. How will we provide and maintain high quality programs for the six priority
public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and
environmental education and interpretation)?
We allow hunting on eight divisions by permit only. More than 300 people buy permits
annually from refuge headquarters. About 60 percent are white-tailed deer hunters.
The refuge is open to deer, waterfowl, pheasant, and other upland game hunting, and
participates in Maine’s special archery season. We have two youth hunt days; youth hunt
areas allow falconry and are open for the late falcon-hunting season. The refuge follows
state regulations although it is more restrictive on some issues. We open new areas to
hunting as we acquire them, provided they are sufficiently isolated from developed areas
and no biological conflicts exist. We review and usually modify the hunting program each
year. Due in part to a long tradition of hunting in the area, the refuge hunting program is
generally well accepted. However, refuge neighbors and other landowners contact us each
year with their concerns about some hunter behavior and sometimes, about our regulations.
In September 2000, after completing the required process, the refuge was formally opened
to sport fishing. After a long consultation with the State of Maine, fishing groups, and
anglers, eight bank fishing and access areas were identified and opened on seven of the
ten refuge divisions. These areas were selected based on minimizing adverse impacts to
habitat and wildlife resources, minimizing conflicts with other existing public uses, and to
accommodate as much as possible existing angler interest. Most anglers pursue either sea
run brown trout and/or striped bass although other species are occasionally caught as well.
In addition to the bank fishing areas, each of the ten refuge divisions has a waterway that
is accessible by watercraft. These waterways provide addition opportunity to anglers with
their ability to access sections of rivers not open for bank fishing.
Issues and Opportunities
Chapter 1. The Purpose and Need for Action
1-20
A traveler through coastal southern Maine likely will encounter at least one division of
the Rachel Carson NWR. However, many visitors and residents may pass by only seeing
our boundary signs: “unauthorized entry prohibited.” We have an opportunity to bring
thousands of travelers and residents onto the refuge to learn about refuge operations,
its wildlife and habitats, the Refuge System, and Rachel Carson’s legacy. The refuge has
informational kiosks and signs at a few trailheads with small parking areas. Responders
to our issues workbook favored increasing visitor opportunities for wildlife watching in
balance with the protection of wildlife and their habitats. The refuge seeks to expand the
number of informational kiosks to enhance understanding of refuge habitats, convey its
messages, build support for its programs, and attract wildlife-oriented volunteers.
Responders to our workbook suggested we vastly increase our environmental education
and interpretation program. They suggested we establish partnerships with educators, and
develop cooperative education programs with local schools and private organizations.
6. How will we build and maintain an active volunteer program?
The Friends of Rachel Carson was established in 1988. The small, yet effective group has
been instrumental in supporting protection of important coastal habitats by the refuge.
Volunteers are essential to the refuge for implementing effective programs and bolstering
understanding and support among neighbors and communities. The need for a committed,
multi-talented, and geographically dispersed volunteer force is especially important at the
refuge because its units are spread across a 50-mile area. We believe strongly that program
management and guidance from refuge staff are the keys to building and sustaining a
committed, well-trained volunteer force.
7. How will we manage non-native, invasive species on refuge lands?
Most people recognize that non-native, invasive plants and animals can displace native
species, degrade wetlands and other natural communities, and reduce natural diversity and
wildlife habitat values. Non-native plants out-compete native species by dominating light,
water, and nutrient resources. We are concerned that, once established, invasive plants
are expensive and labor-intensive to eliminate; they are able to establish easily, reproduce
prolifically, and disperse readily, making eradication difficult. Preventing new invasions is
extremely important for maintaining biological diversity and native plant populations.
The refuge initiated an effort to systematically identify, locate, and map invasive plant
species occurring on refuge lands. This information will be used to develop an integrated
pest management program to guide control, monitoring and evaluation projects. Twenty
non-native invasive plant species that are affecting the quality of native habitats are
documented for the refuge. In addition, hemlock woolly adelgid is documented on Gerrish
Island near the Brave Boat Harbor Division. This insect pest has decimated hemlock
stands in some areas south of New England. Little is currently known about the presence
or effect of aquatic invasive species such as the green crab. Further research is needed to
understand the effects of all invasive species on the natural habitats of coastal Maine.
 Other Issues to Address
1. How will we resolve potential conflicts managing wildlife habitats and protecting
historical resources?
The refuge is required by law to comply with the Section 106 of the National Historical
Preservation Act (NHPA), which requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their
undertakings on historic properties that are eligible for inclusion on the National Register
of Historic Places. The refuge Improvement Act establishes a mission for the Service:
Issues and Opportunities
Chapter 1. The Purpose and Need for Action
1-21
“Working with others, to conserve, protect, and enhance, fish, wildlife and plants, and
their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.” That mission enables the
refuge to contribute to the fulfillment of U.S. obligations to International Treaties.
Current management practices used on the refuge take into consideration possible
historical resources. Projects and habitat management plans routinely receive NHPA
review from the Regional and State Historic Preservation Officers, and archaeological or
historical studies performed as required.
The Maine State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has led the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to decline issuance of two 404 wetland permits the refuge needs to authorize
the restoration of salt marsh on the refuge. The SHPO contends that salt marsh ditches
are a historic landscape eligible for inclusion on the National Register, and that restoration
work would have an adverse impact on that landscape. Although disagreeing with the
SHPO impact opinion, the Service (at SHPO request) has carefully recorded through
photographs and measurements the dimensions and configurations of the ditching, and the
SHPO recognizes that as sufficient mitigation. However, the Corps still declines to issue
the permit without a Memorandum of Agreement between the Service and SHPO. The
Service will consult with and seek a Solicitors review and opinion on the legitimacy of the
Army Corps of Engineers declining this permit. Additionally, there is indication that the
Corps has issued 404 permits for similar activities conducted by other federal agencies
and Service offices in Maine, and the Solicitor’s review will include an examination of
consistency in permit decisions by the Corps. The Solicitor’s opinion will establish a basis
upon which the Refuge will proceed with marsh restoration activities in the event this
permit matter cannot be resolved with the Corps.
2. How will we respond to harbor dredging and beach nourishment that affect the
refuge?
Currently, only one harbor dredge project, in the Webhannet River in Wells, exists in the
refuge. That is an on-going, controversial project.
Several controversial beach nourishment projects have occurred along the southern Maine
coast. That involves dredging sand from one location and placing it onto a beach, almost
always in front of homes, to replace beach that has eroded.
Both of those practices fail to address the dynamic nature of beach and tidal river systems
with natural processes creating constant change in beach conditions. Shoreline home
development and its associated rock jetties limit the natural dynamics of these barrier
beaches, preventing the natural movement of sand up or down the coast.
The refuge will work with others to review dredging and beach nourishment projects, and
will not support new dredging projects in the existing waterways of the refuge. We will
encourage towns to adopt more sustainable development patterns that limit or prevent
beach development.
Plan Amendment and Revision
Periodic review of the CCP will be required to ensure that objectives are being met and
management actions are being implemented. Ongoing monitoring and evaluation will be
an important part of this process. Monitoring results or new information may indicate the
need to change our strategies.
At a minimum, CCPs will be fully revised every 15 years. We will modify the CCP
documents and associated management activities as needed, following the procedures
Plan Amendment and Revision
Chapter 1. The Purpose and Need for Action
1-2 Chapter 1. The Purpose and Need for Action
outlined in Service policy and NEPA requirements. Minor revisions that meet the criteria
for categorical exclusions (550 FW 3.3 C) will only require an Environmental Action
Memorandum.
Plan Amendment and Revision
Chapter 2
Alternatives, Including Our Service-Preferred Alternative
Introduction
Formulating Alternatives
Alternatives, Including the No Actioni Alternative
Actions Common to All Alternatives
Alternatives or Actions Considered but not Fully Developed
Description of Individual Alternatives Analyzed in Detail
Alternative A. Current Management
Alternative B. Our Preferred Alternative
Alternative C
Comparison of Major Actions by Alternative and Issue










USFWS
2-1
Introduction
This chapter presents
 the process for formulating alternatives,
 the actions common among all alternatives,
 the actions or alternatives we considered but did not fully develop, and
 the descriptions of the three alternatives we analyzed in detail.
At the end of this chapter, you will find a tabular matrix that compares specific management
actions and strategies by alternative and issue (table 2.1). We organized that table to show
how the actions and strategies address the significant issues identified in chapter 1.
Formulating Alternatives
Goals and objectives define each alternative. Our goals are intentionally broad,
descriptive statements of desired future condition for refuge lands. By design, they are
less quantitative than prescriptive in defining the targets of our management. They also
articulate the principal elements of refuge purposes and our vision statement and the
foundation for developing specific management objectives. The same goals appear in each
alternative. The alternatives vary in how they accomplish them.
Next, we considered a range of possible management objectives that would help us meet
our goals. Essentially, objectives are incremental steps we take to achieve a goal; they
further define the management targets in measurable terms. They often vary among
the alternatives. Objectives provide the basis for determining more detailed strategies,
monitoring refuge accomplishments, and evaluating our successes. Service guidance
in “Writing Refuge Management Goals and Objectives: A Handbook” (November
2003), recommends that objectives possess five properties: (1) Specific, (2) Measurable,
(3) Achievable, (4) Results-oriented, and (5) Time-fixed.” Their initials form the acronym
“SMART.”
You will notice that the objectives in alternative A do not adhere strictly to the SMART
format, because they describe management activities that were already established on the
refuge before the Service published its 2003 handbook.
The objectives we considered ranged from those that require only minimum levels of
funding and staffing to those that require considerable increases in funding, staffing, and
developing infrastructure and partnerships. Some of them relate directly to managing
habitat, while others relate to meeting population targets tied to species recovery or other
regional plans. We developed them in collaboration with other New England refuges in a
Habitat Management Plan (HMP). This chapter also describes that process.
We include a rationale in every objective, so you can understand its context and why we
consider it important. We will use the ones our Regional Director selects for the final CCP
in refuge step-down plans, including its HMP. Our successes will reflect how well we achieve
them.
Finally, we developed strategies for each objective. Strategies are specific actions, tools,
techniques, considerations, or a combination of those, that we may use in achieving the
objectives. Most likely, we will carry them directly over into subsequent, step-down plans;
but, we may revise some of them in the process of developing those plans.
Formulating Alternatives
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including Our Service-Preferred Alternative
Alternatives, Including the No Action Alternative
After identifying a range of possible management objectives and strategies, we began
the process of creating alternatives. Simply put alternatives package complementary
management objectives for achieving the Service and Refuge System missions, the
purposes for which the refuge was established, and refuge vision and goals, while
responding to issues and opportunities identified during the planning process. To that
end, we grouped various objectives that fit together in what we loosely called themes. We
believe our three alternatives and their respective objectives represent a reasonable range
of proposals for achieving the purposes, vision, and goals of the refuge and addressing the
significant issues in chapter 1.
NEPA requires our analysis of a “No Action” alternative, which continues our current
management of the refuge. In this draft CCP/EA, alternative A fulfills that requirement.
We refer to alternative A throughout this plan as the “Current Management Alternative.”
It provides the baseline for comparing or contrasting the other two action alternatives. In
fact, we suggest first reading chapter 3, “Affected Environment,” for detailed descriptions
of refuge resources.
Actions Common to All Alternatives
We will implement some actions regardless of the alternative selected. Those
 may be required by law or policy,
 represent NEPA decisions that have recently gone through a public and agency review,
 compose administrative actions that do not necessarily require public review, but that
we wanted to highlight in this document,
 are considered so fundamentally important in achieving refuge purposes and goals, we
determined they should occur regardless of the alternative, or
 fill approved, essential staffing positions, and provide essential maintenance, visitor,
and administrative space required to fulfill refuge obligations.
 Habitat Management Plan
A Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for the refuge is the requisite first step in achieving
the objectives under goals 1 through 3 in all of the alternatives. For example, it establishes
what specific strategies are necessary to enhance, restore, and manage important habitats
and minimize impacts on significant species assemblages.
It also describes the timing of those actions, and identifies how we will measure our success.
We drafted a HMP at the same time as the CCP so their habitat objectives would be
consistent. We are still developing specific habitat prescriptions for each management unit
of the refuge. However, appendix E includes the range of management prescriptions that
the refuge likely will use during the 15-year periods of the CCP and HMP.
 Inventory and Monitoring Plan
Completing an Inventory and Monitoring Plan (IMP) for the refuge is also a priority. That
plan is vital for measuring our success in meeting our objectives in all of the alternatives.
It will outline the methods we will use to assess whether our original assumptions and
2-2 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including Our Service-Preferred Alternative
Alternatives, Including the No Action Alternative
proposed management actions are, in fact, supporting our habitat and species objectives.
The results of our inventory and monitoring will provide more extensive information on the
status of refuge wildlife and their habitats and allow more informed management decisions.
 Fire Management Plan
Service policy mandates a Fire Management Plan for refuges that have “vegetation capable
of sustaining fire.” The fire plan addresses wildland and prescribed fires, with guidelines on
the level of protection needed to ensure safety, protect facilities and resources, and restore
and perpetuate natural processes. We have revised the refuge FMP, first approved in 1997.
The refuge completed the revision in 2005 and expects to have it approved by the end of
2006. We prepare step-down prescribed burn plans each year.
 Land Protection
All three alternatives include, at a minimum, the continued acquisition from willing sellers
of land in the currently approved refuge boundary. We now have approval to acquire the
3,833 acres that remain in private ownership in that boundary. We believe their acquisition
is essential for meeting refuge purposes and goals. Although all three alternatives include
those 3,833 acres, they differ in how much additional land they propose for Service
acquisition. All the lands we acquire would become part of the refuge (see appendix A).
In addition to Service acquisition, all three alternatives would allow us to continue
cooperating with our conservation partners to identify and protect areas of high
biodiversity value important for Federal trust resources and other rare or declining species
or plant communities. Our working together to complement each other’s land protection is
important, given the limited funding and resources available.
 Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments
Annual refuge revenue sharing payments to the 11 towns in which refuge lands lie will
continue under each alternative as law and policy allow. Future payments will be made in
accordance with approved, appraised values, considering new acquisitions, and the level of
Congressional appropriations each year. Please refer to chapter 3 for additional information
on refuge revenue sharing payments.
 Partnerships
All three alternatives support partnerships to the fullest possible extent. They are vital in
successfully managing all aspects of the refuge, from land protection to habitat and species
management to public use. Chapter 5 lists many of our partners.
 Friends Group Support
All three alternatives would continue to support the Friends of Rachel Carson association.
We expect that group to provide us with valuable assistance in implementing the final CCP.
 Volunteer Opportunities
All three alternatives would continue our successful volunteer program. Volunteers
perform thousands of hours of work in administration, public use, and the biological
program. Volunteers have enhanced our ability to complete many tasks associated with
refuge management.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including Our Service-Preferred Alternative 2-3
Actions Common to All Alternatives
 Existing Facilities Maintenance
The periodic maintenance and renovation of existing facilities is a critical need, regardless
of the alternative finally selected, to ensure safety and accessibility for refuge staff and
visitors. Future maintenance needs vary among the alternatives, since they differ in the
amount of new facility construction. Appendix E lists new construction projects from our
Refuge Operating Needs Systems (RONS) database and projects from our Maintenance
Management System (MMS) that identify repairs, replacements, and other work needed
for existing facilities and equipment.
We would seek funds for refuge public use, parking lots, bridges, restrooms, and trails from
the Refuge Roads Program (RRP), a Federal Lands Highway Program that Congress
funded through the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (P.L. 109–59; 119 STAT. 1144). Those funds can also be
used for interpretive enhancements associated with the projects, as long as the costs for
the interpretive facilities do not exceed 5 percent of the project budget. RRP funds can
be used as the non-federal match for FHA funds available through state departments of
transportation. Refuges can use appropriated Service funds as the non-federal match for
those funds, as well. That matching ability can be used to further city, county, and state
transportation and transit funds for projects that benefit the refuge.
 Refuge Facilities
All three alternatives include the construction of a new administrative facility to support
both our present and approved staffing, a new maintenance facility to improve the
efficiency of refuge infrastructure maintenance and biological operations, and a pole shed to
protect refuge vehicles and equipment from weather and vandalism (see the sidebar on the
following page).
 Permitting Special Uses
In all of the alternatives, we will continue to allow existing, compatible, approved special
use permits. The refuge manager evaluates all requests for special use permits individually
for their appropriateness and compatibility. At a minimum, all commercial activities and all
research projects require special use permits unless new information indicates they are no
longer compatible.
We will encourage research projects that improve or strengthen natural resource
management decisions on the refuge. Research on species of concern and their habitats
will continue to be a priority. The refuge manager may also consider research not directly
related to refuge objectives, but contributes to the broader enhancement, protection, or
management of native species and biological diversity in the region and beyond.
We will promote partnerships with local universities and colleges, the USGS and other
federal and state research agencies. The refuge manager will determine on a case-by-case
basis whether they can directly support a project through funding or in-kind services
(e.g., housing or use of other facilities), field assistance, or through sharing data and
records.
All present and future researchers on the refuge will be required to submit a detailed
research proposal following Service policy in the Refuge Manual, chapter 4, section 6.
Special use permits must also identify a schedule for progress reports (at least annually),
criteria for determining when a project should cease, and publication or other final
reporting requirements. Service divisions and state agencies may be asked to review and
Actions Common to All Alternatives
2-4 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including Our Service-Preferred Alternative
Refuge Facilities—History and Current Needs
Rachel Carson refuge began in 1966 as an unstaffed satellite of Parker River refuge in Newburyport, MA. The
first staffed position at the refuge was established in 1977, at a small cabin off Drakes Island Road in the Lower
Wells Division. A new office/residence was built in 1980 at its current location on Route 9 in the Upper Wells
Division. Three staff occupied a one-room office.
Between 1989 and 1990, a new office was constructed to accommodate the three staff, with private offices for the
manager and assistant manager, a general work area for the administrative staff, a small visitor contact area,
a garage and a workshop. In 1996, the building was modified, adding approximately 300 square feet for a new
visitor contact area and converting the garage into office space for a staff that had grown to four positions.
In 1997 the addition of a visitor services specialist increased the permanent refuge staff to five. That staff
continued to grow, adding three permanent positions, two permanent seasonal positions, and as many as seven
temporary positions, a YCC crew, and a co-located Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) coordinator. We converted
the maintenance area into offices and built an 18x30-foot addition for staff space. In 2003, the staff total swelled
to 22 (10 permanent, 12 seasonal). The present building offers crowded office and work space, no additional file
storage, only one bathroom, and inadequate parking for visitor, staff, and work vehicles.
The existing building and parking area cannot accommodate the approved staffing chart strength (see
alternative A) of 13 permanent employees plus seasonal employees. In summer, a staff of 22 has only one
bathroom. The refuge headquarters lacks adequate space and parking area to host meetings with partners. The
only parking available is for the Carson Trail, which has a limit of 15 vehicles.
The refuge needs a new administrative facility to provide safe, adequate facilities for permanent and seasonal
staff under all three alternatives, and to increase the overall efficiency of operations. The existing headquarters
site, although convenient for the 100,000-plus annual visitors to the Carson Trail, cannot accommodate any
additional building or parking because of its proximity to two rivers. A new administrative facility may include
co-location with the Service’s Gulf of Maine Coastal Program, other Service programs, and possibly other
federal agencies. The facility would include a visitor contact area of sufficient size to accommodate and provide
information to the approximately 300,000 refuge visitors as well as an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 additional
visitors expected at the refuge. The Service’s “Suite of Facilities” criteria will be used to determine the
appropriate facility.
Executive Order No. 13123, “Greening the Government Through Efficient Energy Management,” calls for
the federal government to have 20,000 solar energy systems at federal facilities by the end of 2010.The new
facility would incorporate various green technologies, such as recycled materials, porous materials for roads and
parking, and solar energy. The facility would demonstrate the federal commitment to energy conservation in
government facilities, and provide a modern example of Rachel Carson’s legacy.
A maintenance facility is also essential to accommodate refuge vehicles and equipment and serve as a refuge
workshop. On-going projects now must be moved out of the way to accommodate new or emergency projects.
Deliveries of supplies and materials must be placed on the floor, often filling work space or creating obstacles.
Current vehicles are wedged among pine and oak trees that occasionally fall down in storms. In 2003, a tree
with a diameter between 18 and 24 inches nearly fell on three or four vehicles with a combined value of almost
$100,000. A pole building would be constructed to accommodate the more than $600,000 worth of vehicles and
equipment now subject to the salt air as well as an annual snowfall over 72 inches. The existing maintenance
facility is a storage building that would continue to provide storage.
comment on research proposals. Research results will be shared within the Service, with
the MDIFW, and elsewhere as appropriate.
Some projects, such as depredation and banding studies, require additional Service
permits. We will not approve them until they have met all the requirements for Service
permits and Endangered Species Act consultation. Instances may arise when a special use
request is found to be unsuitable for refuge lands. In those instances, the refuge manager
may decline to issue the permit.
Actions Common to All Alternatives
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including Our Service-Preferred Alternative 2-5
 Adaptive Management
All three alternatives share a strategy of adaptive management to keep the CCP relevant
and current through scientific research and management. We acknowledge that our
information on species and ecosystems is incomplete, provisional, and subject to change as
our knowledge base improves.
Climate plays a significant role in the geographic distribution of ecosystems and wildlife,
and most scientists agree that global climate change is already affecting some ecosystems.
“Global temperatures increased by over 1°F in the past century and are projected to
increase 2.5-10.4°F by 2100 as a result of human emissions of greenhouse gases” (Parmesan
and Galbraith 2004). Some recent shifts in wildlife populations are attributed to changing
climate conditions, and those impacts are projected to increase. Changes in temperature
and precipitation will affect biological diversity, including national wildlife refuges, and
challenge land managers.
Our objectives and strategies must be adaptable in responding to new information and
spatial and temporal changes. We will continually evaluate our management actions, both
formally and informally, through monitoring or research, to reconsider whether their
original assumptions and predictions are still valid. In that way, management becomes
an active process of learning what really works. Public understanding and appreciation
of the adaptive nature of natural resource management is most important, especially in
light of the potential large-scale impacts of global climate change. The refuge manager is
responsible for changing management actions if they do not produce the desired conditions.
Significant changes may warrant additional NEPA analysis. Minor changes will not, but we
will document then in annual monitoring or project evaluation reports or the refuge Annual
Narrative Report.
Alternatives or Actions Considered But Not Fully Developed
 No Service Land Acquisition
We considered an alternative that proposes no acquisition of additional Service land, and
forgoes acquiring those tracts in our currently approved refuge boundary. However, we
quickly found that alternative would compromise our ability to achieve our refuge purposes
and goals. As we noted above in discussing land protection, at a minimum, acquiring the
privately owned lands in our currently approved boundary is most important. They are
important for their federal trust resource values, and would provide us with more efficient,
effective management boundaries. Furthermore, their potential development would
adversely impact resources on adjacent refuge lands. Finally, we note that no individual,
agency, organization, or elected official has recommended that alternative to us. Therefore,
we decided that developing it in further detail was not warranted.
Description of Individual Alternatives Analyzed in Detail
The rest of this chapter presents the three alternatives that we analyzed in detail. We
describe each one in overview, and then present its goals, objectives, and strategies, as well
as its proposed public use programs and infrastructure.
Following those descriptions, table 2.1 presents a side-by-side comparison of how the
alternatives address the significant issues identified in chapter 1. We designed it to provide
you with a quick overview of the principal federal actions the alternatives propose, and how
those actions distinguish the alternatives. Chapter 4 describes in detail the environmental
consequences of implementing those actions.
Alternatives or Actions Considered But Not Fully Developed
2-6 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including Our Service-Preferred Alternative
Alternative A. Current Management
 Introduction
This alternative portrays current, planned, approved management activities. It describes
projects planned, funded, or underway, and serves as a baseline for comparing the other
two alternatives. It would continue these priorities of the biological program: piping
plover and least tern management, salt marsh monitoring and restoration, waterfowl
management, limited fall shorebird surveys, sharp-tailed sparrow ecology, invasive plant
evaluation and eradication, shrubland, thicket and grassland management for migratory
birds and New England Cottontail, and rare plant and animal conservation. The refuge
gathers baseline data on ecosystems and plant communities and manages these areas
with the best sustainable strategies. It would sustain those priorities as completely as
possible, within the limitations of our current staffing and the present involvement of our
conservation partners.
The refuge first opened for hunting in 1980; its most recent Hunting Plan was approved
in 1990. We prepare annual hunt programs, seek State review, and have instituted several
changes in the 1990 Hunting Plan. Those include reinstating a permit requirement (1992),
implementing a user fee (1995, modified in 1996), closing the refuge to the hunting of New
England cottontail and other small game (1998), and opening the Little River Division for
archery deer hunting (2001).
Portions of eight divisions on the refuge are now open for shotgun and archery deer
hunting in all state seasons, except muzzleloader season. The Moody and Biddeford Pool
divisions are closed to all hunting. Migratory bird hunting (waterfowl and woodcock)
and falconry are allowed on portions of 6 of the 10 divisions. Upland game bird hunting
(pheasant and grouse) is permitted on the same eight divisions above, and in areas that are
open for deer hunting.
An annual average of 387 people have hunted on the refuge since the 2000 season. The
number of permits issued annually has averaged 423 for the same time period (a hunter
can have more than one permit, e.g., for deer and for migratory birds). In fiscal year 2004,
hunters spent an estimated 6,600 days on the refuge.
The refuge officially opened for sport fishing in September 2000. It now has designated
eight sites for bank fishing on seven divisions. In fiscal year 2004, anglers spent an
estimated 1600 days on the refuge, fishing primarily for striped bass and sea-run brown
trout. Most anglers either fly fish or use bait, primarily for those two species, although
other species can be caught as well. In addition to the sites designated for bank fishing,
all of the divisions have a tidal waterway accessible by boat, thus providing more fishing
opportunities.
We attempted several times to develop and implement a Public Use/Visitor Services
Plan (1990, 1993, and 1994), but none were completed. Despite the lack of that plan, we
implemented some visitor opportunities and programs. In the 1980s, we upgraded the
Carson Trail at the refuge headquarters in Wells to wheelchair accessibility. It provides
year-round wildlife viewing opportunities to an estimated 100,000 visitors annually. We
completed a wildlife observation platform on the Goosefare Brook Division in 2002 and
the Cutts Island Trail on the Brave Boat Harbor Division in 2003. The Youth Conservation
Corps started a wildlife observation platform on the Mousam River Division in 2003 and
finished it in 2004. Several other trails owned and maintained by refuge partners cross
through or lie adjacent to the refuge (e.g., WNERR in Wells, the Harts Road and Bridle
Path in Kennebunk, Atlantic Way Trail, Plymouth Way Trail in Saco, Ted Wells Trail in Old
Alternative A. Current Management
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including Our Service-Preferred Alternative 2-7
Orchard Beach), providing recreation opportunities to an estimated 75,000 users. Maps 2–1
through 2–11 on pages 2-24 to 2-34 show the present public use on each division.
An internship program that began in 1996 has provided limited programs, primarily
on summer weekends, to visitors at the refuge headquarters in Wells. Refuge staff
also provide a small number of programs, depending on their individual workloads and
interests. However nothing is routinely scheduled. A partnership with the Kittery Trading
Post began in 2002, for an expert from the Trading Post to hold a fly fishing demonstration
for kids in late June or early July. In fall 2002, the refuge assumed the responsibility for
coordinating and hosting the Federal Junior Duck Stamp Competition in Maine. In 2004,
that competition received more than 425 entries.
The refuge comprises 10 divisions and protects more than 5,200 acres of wildlife habitat.
We would continue to pursue acquisition from willing sellers of the 3,833 acres of land that
remains privately owned in the approved acquisition boundary, potentially bringing its total
acreage to 9,126. Those lands include salt marshes and upland edge habitats that provide
important resting, nesting, and feeding locations for a host of waterfowl, wading birds,
shorebirds, raptors and songbirds, and also include uplands that provide critical buffers for
salt marshes, streams and freshwater wetlands.
The refuge staff now consists of seven permanent employees: a refuge manager (GS-13), a
deputy refuge manager (GS-12), a wildlife biologist (GS-11), a LMRD biologist (GS-12/13),
a maintenance worker (WG-8), an administrative officer (GS-7), and one career-seasonal
forestry technician (GS-6)
We now have two vacancies: a visitor services manager (GS-11) and a career-seasonal
forestry technician (GS-4). Four additional permanent positions (Tier 1 RONS – see
appendix F) are now on the currently approved staffing chart, but are not filled: park
ranger/law enforcement officer (GS-9), maintenance worker (WG-9), visitor services
specialist (GS-5); and one part time position, administrative support assistant (GS-5).
Filling those essential positions is part of alternative A (see appendix F for our staffing
charts). One of the two regional wildland-urban interface (WUI) coordinators is co-located
at the refuge, and receives administrative support from refuge staff.
The refuge office was built for a staff of three, with a single bathroom and two garage bays,
one of which serves as a maintenance shop. Both garages were converted to offices and
meeting room/general workspace, and an addition was built for offices. The original visitor
contact area was approximately 60 feet square, which we converted to office space when an
addition provided a new contact area of 180 square feet.
In the 2003 and 2004 field seasons, more than 20 employees, the wildland-urban interface
coordinator, interns, and seasonal and temporary employees filled all available work space.
Two or even three shared some areas. Despite earlier additions, only one staff bathroom
is available. Available staff parking overflows with service and personal vehicles squeezed
among trees and along the access road.
Much of the rationale for each objective is included under alternative B, because that is
our preferred action, and documents the need to expand staffing and facilities to meet
refuge goals. The strategies in each objective below are those we are now implementing,
or already have been identified as priorities in the next few years under our current
management (alternative A).
Alternative A. Current Management
2-8 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including Our Service-Preferred Alternative
GOAL 1. Perpetuate the biological integrity and diversity of coastal habitats to
sustain native wildlife and plant communities, including species of
conservation concern.
 Objective 1.1 – Salt Marsh
Manage salt marsh to ensure that its quality and natural functions are sustained and
it provides breeding, wintering and migrating habitat for bird species of conservation
concern.
Rationale
Coastal salt marshes provide breeding habitat for black ducks. Coastal marshes, estuaries,
and sheltered coves are especially important to wintering black ducks for foraging and
shelter (Dettmers 2004). Many other species of wading birds, waterfowl, and shorebirds
forage in the salt marsh during migrating and breeding seasons. In summer 2004, intensive
fall shorebird surveys were conducted. Eight sites were surveyed weekly through the
summer and into the fall. The three most common species were semipalmated sandpiper,
black-bellied plover, and semipalmated plover.
Over 90 percent of salt marshes in the Northeast were parallel-grid-ditched by 1938 for
mosquito control (Bourn and Cottom 1950). Since 1996, the refuge has restored salt marsh
on several divisions, primarily by plugging ditches to restore pools and salt pannes. Recent
projects also included partnering to restore tidal flow, eradicate invasive plants, or remove
fill from impaired marshes. See goal 4, “Land Management Research Demonstration,” on
page 2-15 for more about our work on salt marshes.
Strategies
 Continue to monitor salt marsh restoration sites
 Identify areas of salt marsh for restoration and implement restoration as resources
permit
 Identify and permanently protect high-priority salt marsh habitats
 Continue invasive species (e.g., purple loosestrife, phragmites) monitoring and control
using mowing, biological (e.g., beetles), tidal restoration, and hand pulling methods
 Identify high-density areas of sharp-tailed sparrows and continue ecological studies of
these birds
 Work with partners each year to control and manage stormwater runoff
 Conduct fall shorebird surveys each year and contribute to the International Shorebird
Survey (ISS)
 Plan for oil spill response
 Determine mercury and other contaminant exposure for sharp-tailed sparrows in
Maine coastal marshes
Alternative A. Current Management
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including Our Service-Preferred Alternative 2-9
 Objective 1.2 – Piping Plover
Protect beach berm and associated dune edges, washovers, and intertidal areas for nesting,
staging and feeding piping plovers.
 Rationale
Piping plovers are federal-listed as threatened and state-listed as endangered in Maine.
They nest above the high tide line on open sand, gravel or shell-covered beaches, especially
on sand spits and blowout areas in dunes. Fifty percent to 75 percent of the Maine piping
plover population nests at three sites on or near the refuge, including Crescent Surf Beach,
Goosefare Brook, and Marshall Point at Goose Rocks. Since 2000, the refuge has assumed
the primary responsibility for monitoring several piping plover sites on and off the refuge.
That involves working cooperatively with private landowners, the Ferry Beach State Park,
and the Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve to protect nesting plovers on their
lands.
The refuge uses several techniques, including hazing, fencing, trapping, and shooting,
to control diurnal predators such as crows and foxes. Fencing around plover nests is
occasionally vandalized, and dogs on the beaches can kill plover chicks and cause plovers
to abandon their nests. Beachgoers can sometimes cause nest abandonment by sitting
too close to them. Refuge staff work to educate the public about the protection necessary
to meet piping plover recovery goals, and also work with 12 to 20 beachfront landowners
willing to protect nesting plovers.
Strategies
 Continue monitoring the productivity of piping plover nests
 Continue fencing, signing, and patrolling nesting areas
 Continue controlling predators where necessary using lethal (e.g., trapping, shooting)
and non-lethal (e.g., live trapping, scarecrows, and effigies) deterrents
 Continue working with private landowners to protect plovers on nesting beaches
 Continue on-site public outreach and education on nesting beaches
 Objective 1.3 – Least Tern
Protect beach berm and associated dune edges, washovers, and intertidal areas for nesting,
staging and feeding least terns.
Rationale
The least tern is a state endangered species in Maine and is listed as a bird of high
conservation concern for BCR 30. They nest in late April and early May, feed on small fish,
and congregate and forage by late July and early August (McCollough, et al. 2003).
Crescent Surf Beach is one of the primary least tern nesting colonies within the State.
Since 1999, it has hosted the largest colony of nesting terns in the State, with the exception
of 2004. In recent years colony productivity has been depressed by crow predation
and mammalian predators. The refuges use several management techniques to control
predators, including hazing, fencing, trapping and shooting.
Alternative A. Current Management
2-10 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including Our Service-Preferred Alternative
Strategies
 Continue fencing and signing nesting areas
 Continue controlling predators where necessary using deterrents both lethal
(e.g., trapping, shooting) and non-lethal (e.g., trapping, scarecrows, and effigies)
 Continue on-site public outreach and education on nesting beaches
 Conduct minimal monitoring to estimate population size and productivity
 Objective 1.4 – Tidal River, Estuary, and Bay
Through an active role in local and state partnerships, help maintain water quality and
quantity of open water habitat in tidal rivers, estuaries and bays to provide resting and
foraging habitat for waterfowl, marsh and wading birds and other birds of conservation
concern.
Rationale
The refuge was established around a series of tidal rivers and associated estuaries along
Maine’s southern coast. Those coastal habitats teem with wildlife all year. Black ducks,
common eiders, scoters, mallards, red-breasted mergansers, goldeneyes, buffleheads, and
loons are the most common wintering waterfowl that forage in the open water areas of the
bays and rivers. Management issues include habitat degradation from the development of
adjacent and upstream upland habitat, oil spills, stormwater discharge, human disturbance,
and contaminants.
Protecting the water quality and ecological integrity of habitats in Maine’s tidal rivers and
estuaries requires a partnership among government agencies, civic groups, conservation
organizations, and residents throughout the watershed. The WNERR developed a series
of watershed conservation strategy reports for seven watersheds in southern Maine,
providing a baseline of existing information on them (WNERR 2003).
Strategies
 Promote land conservation annually with conservation partners to maintain the
ecological integrity of coastal Maine watersheds
 Seek volunteers to complete minimal waterfowl and shorebird surveys
GOAL 2. Perpetuate the biological integrity and diversity of freshwater habitats
to sustain native wildlife and plant communities, including species of
conservation concern.
 Objective 2.1 – Emergent Marsh, Scrub-Shrub Wetland, Bog, Vernal Pool,
Forested Wetland
Maintain emergent marsh, scrub-shrub, bog, forested wetland, and vernal pool habitats to
sustain populations of species of conservation concern, including Blanding’s turtle, wood
frog, and blue-spotted salamander.
Alternative A. Current Management
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including Our Service-Preferred Alternative 2-11
 Rationale
The undeveloped forests and wetlands in the eastern Biddeford and northern
Kennebunkport region contain high concentrations of pocket swamps and vernal pools:
habitats that are becoming increasingly rare in Maine. Forests at Brave Boat Harbor and
in the Upper Wells divisions also contain high concentrations of vernal pool habitat. Vernal
pools offer important breeding habitat for some species of amphibians and invertebrates,
including wood frog, spotted and blue-spotted salamander, and fairy shrimp. Several
rare species also use them, including the state-listed endangered Blanding’s turtle, and
the state-listed threatened spotted turtle. Most of those species require a large area of
relatively undisturbed upland habitat for nesting, foraging, and dispersal.
Strategies
 Identify and survey vernal pools before actively managing any forest
GOAL 3. Perpetuate the biological integrity and diversity of upland habitats to
sustain native wildlife and plant communities, including species of
conservation concern.
 Objective 3.1 – Shrubland/Early Successional
Maintain shrubland as early successional habitat to support New England cottontail and to
provide nesting and feeding habitat for birds of conservation concern, such as woodcock.
Rationale
The New England cottontail has declined significantly in the past 40 years. In 1989, the
Service listed this species as a candidate for threatened or endangered species status,
and the Northeast Nongame Technical Committee lists the New England cottontail as a
species of high conservation priority. Cottontails now occupy a variety of habitats, including
shrubby wetlands, idle farm fields, powerline corridors, and patches of early successional
forest.
New England cottontails were found on 5 of 29 sites inventoried on the refuge (see
Litvaitis 2003b for site numbers). They are common on the Wells Research Reserve, and
occasionally are found near the refuge headquarters.
Woodcock are another early successional species of conservation concern. Long-term
trends show a decline of 2.3 percent per year from 1968 to 2003. The major causes for
those declines are thought to be the loss and degradation of habitat on the breeding and
wintering grounds caused by forest succession and changes in land use (Kelley 2003).
Strategies
 Maintain moderate (>10 ha) to large (>25 ha) shrubland/early successional patches
in some of the core habitats identified by Litvaitis et al. (2003b) and other habitat
associates using mechanical methods
 Continue to work with partners to identify and manage shrublands using mechanical
methods, for high-priority shrubland nesting birds
Alternative A. Current Management
2-12 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including Our Service-Preferred Alternative
 Objective 3.2 – Grassland
Maintain and manage existing grasslands as nesting and feeding habitat for bobolink and to
maintain field conditions for other wildlife.
Rationale
Populations of grassland birds are declining as grassland habitats and other agricultural
conditions diminish. Grassland habitats in the northeast are important for these species,
given their continental decline and habitat loss in the core of their ranges in the Midwest.
Most of the those species (e.g., grasshopper, vesper, and savannah sparrows, and eastern
meadowlark) that have declined in the region require 20 acres or more of contiguous
grassland habitat (Jones and Vickery 1997). Only the bobolink occupies areas less than
10 acres, although a viable population would require a larger grassland.
Strategies
 Evalu